The 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses were a series of electoral
contests taking place within all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia and five U.S.
territories, occurring between February 1 and June 14, 2016. Sanctioned by the Democratic Party,
these elections were designed to select the 4,051 delegates to send to the Democratic National
Convention, which will select the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States
in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. An extra 718 unpledged delegates (714 votes), or "superdelegates",
are appointed by the party independently of the primaries' electoral process. The convention will
also approve the party's platform and vice-presidential nominee. The Democratic nominee will
challenge other presidential candidates in national elections to succeed President Barack Obama
at noon on January 20, 2017, following his two terms in office.
A total of six major candidates entered the race starting April 12, 2015, when former Secretary
of State and New York Senator Hillary Clinton formally announced her second bid for the
presidency. She was followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Governor of Maryland
Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb
and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. There was some speculation that incumbent Vice
President Joe Biden would also enter the race, but he chose not to run. A draft movement was
started to encourage Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to seek the presidency, but Warren
declined to run. Prior to the Iowa caucuses on February 1, 2016, Webb and Chafee both withdrew
after consistently polling below 2%.[2] Lessig withdrew after the rules of a debate were changed
such that he would no longer qualify to participate.[3]
During 2016 election campaign: "On foreign policy Hillary is trigger happy" says Trump and he is right 100%... And he continued Hillary
policies.
And the he behaves as 100% pure militarist.
Notable quotes:
"... I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach ..."
"... Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible. ..."
"... Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. ..."
"... Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes. ..."
"... A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization. ..."
"... Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc. ..."
"... if you pay them enough. ..."
"... "We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated." ..."
"... Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban. ..."
"... Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win. ..."
"... James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary. ..."
"... even in comparison with Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers" ..."
"... "As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover" ..."
"... "We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home." ..."
"... "What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges." ..."
"... "There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." ..."
"... You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does. ..."
"... if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done ..."
"... Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it. ..."
"... Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today. ..."
There are good reasons to harbor serious reservations about The Donald, given that he changes
his position as frequently as most people change their clothes. But so far, he has been consistent
in making an argument that is sorely underrepresented in the media and in policy circles: that our
war-making in the Middle East has been a costly disaster with no upside to the US. Trump even cites,
without naming him, Joe Stiglitz's estimate that
our wars have cost at least $4 trillion.
As Lambert put it, "I hate it when Trump is right."
If you think Trump is overstating his case on Hillary's trigger-happiness, read this New York
Times story,
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk .
Mrs. Clinton's account of a unified European-Arab front powerfully influenced Mr. Obama. "Because
the president would never have done this thing on our own," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy
national security adviser.
Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton's backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him
privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was "51-49."
"I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president
on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach," Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries
of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might
have been politically impossible.
Best assessment yet. This is a great speech bite from Donald but I have no idea if he means it.
(Though I don't agree with it just look at his Muslim Ban stance) Half the time he makes coherent
reasonable arguments, the other half the time I think he definitely is a Clinton Mole. I don't know
which Trump I'm getting hour to hour much less day to day.
Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting
general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to
coalesce the angry populist vote. It'll be interesting to watch Hillary circle the wagons of the content,
elite center in an attempt to hold off the marginalized hordes of angry "savage plebs", especially if
the convention seems stolen. Still hoping for some miracle to pull Sanders through.
Miracle indeed, Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's
hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes.
In all seriousness, why is his Muslim ban idea bad? Or for that matter why would it, in principle,
be a bad idea to ban nearly all foreigners from entering the US? After all, it's not as if the US has
some actual need for foreigners to enter considering the large and growing desperately poor domestic
population. Especially considering that heretofore (let's be real here) both legal and illegal immigration
has been mainly exploited to destroy domestic labor conditions in the US.
This is a fact a lot of ostensibly good-hearted progressive and wealthy liberals conveniently ignore
(they'd probably cry themselves to sleep if they could no longer help to improve the lot of that below
minimum wage illegal immigrant maid they hired). Well, the working poor aren't ignoring it, and the
lid is going to blow soon if this keeps up. Donald Trump and the popularity of his Muslim ban is only
an early sign of the brewing discontent.
He didn't propose banning Muslims as a way to address our jobs and economic problems (which it isn't),
he proposed it as a way to address domestic terror (which it isn't). It's a political tactic to stir
up and implicitly sanction hate, prejudice, divisiveness, and violence.
Not arguing your point, however how are Trump supporters reading this? These people are already against
any immigrant coming into the US for economic reasons, and in all honesty they are looking for any excuse
whatsoever to view immigrants in a bad light.
Just to add to that a bit, it's also why immigrant crime is always being hyped up and exaggerated
by Trump supporters. The real issue deep down is that immigrants are threatening them economically,
and they'll use any justification whatsoever to get rid of them.
Is it right? I don't really know how to objectively answer that. But for the people doing it, this
could work out in economic terms for them. So at least from their perspective it's a good idea.
I think people are just so angry with how the squillionaries use "politically correct" proper thinking
about immigration to hide their illegal suppression of wages that even outrageous and outlandish statements
by The Donald will not dissuade his supporters – – after all, the supporters could ask why is this issue
of wage suppression, "by any means necessary", that affects FAR, FAR more people who ARE US citizens
so scrupulously IGNORED by the media (media owned by rich??? – of course). As disturbing as what The
Donald says, what is NOT SAID by the ENTIRE (except Sanders) US political establishment, is far more
disturbing, as I think it shows an utterly captured political caste. As well as the rank hypocrisy that
if any of these immigrants don't have health care after they arrive, the squillionaires couldn't care
less if they died in the streets – no matter how rich they are, they want to make more people poorer.
They are such an evil enemy that people will put up with The Donald.
It is a fact that these tech billionaires engaged in an illegal activity. It is a fact the US government
simply ignored enforcing laws and refuses to punish them.
Trump in my view will not be able to do even a quarter of some of this crap like banning Muslims
– laws do have to be passed. But the fact remains that Trump will probably be the only presidential
nominee (not presidential candidate, i.e., Sanders), and the last one in 40 years, to even merely talk
about these issues.
The fact that Trump succeeds just shows how famished people are to some challenge to the war mongering,
coddling of the rich that is passed off as something that the majority supports.
A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia
and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers,
and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance
complex; and harms the rest of us.
It seems no more likely that Trump as president will actually promote policies that will "work out
in economic terms" for ordinary people as it was to think Obama would put on this "comfortable shoes"
and join a picket line (though I bought that one at the time).
Hillary basically won relatively well to do minorities who voted for her in 2008 just in smaller
numbers. Poorer minorities stayed home in Southern states where Internet access is less available and
progressive organizations are just churches. On the surface, Sanders sounds very much like the media
perception of President Hope and Change who isn't as popular as much as no one wants to admit the first
non white President was terrible or they actively applauded terrible policy.
Free college probably didn't appeal to people with junk degrees from for profit diploma mills. The
damage is done. People need jobs not school at this point or incomes. A green jobs guarantee act would
have been a better push front and center, but again, this is with hindsight. Many minority voters simply
didn't vote, and Hillary pushed that "you don't know Bernie" line to scare voters that Sanders was another
Obama.
Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization.
Agree that jobs should be the focus (or income and meeting basic needs). Education as the focus appeals
to the under 25 years old college bound crowd, but not so much to anyone older having to survive out
there in the work world everyday.
I am a Trump supporter and I am not against immigrants or immigration. I am opposed to doing nothing
in the face of a broken immigration system. I do not think it is wise for any country to have millions
and millions of undocumented workers in its midst. I believe we should legalize those that are here.
Those that have committed crimes not related to immigrating or over staying visas should absolutely
be deported and lose the privilege of living in the US. I live in Spain, but am an American. If I broke
minor laws, such as drunk driving, assault or drug possession I would be deported too, seems fair to
me. I believe we have to revamp border security, though I don´t think a wall spanning the entire border
would be wise or effective I personally think Trump is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically about
the wall. Nonetheless, our elites sure do love living behind big walls and gated communities, with armed
security, maybe we should ask them why, walls are just racist anyways, no?
Immigrant crime is not some myth, its real and sometimes it is a very tragic consequence of a broken
immigration system. The fact that the cartels also exploit our broken border and immigration system
is not a myth either, it is reality.
And as for a temporary ban on Muslims coming from Syria, Libya and other locations that have been
devastated by the covert and overt wars of the US I support it totally, for no other reason than public
safety, which is the first reason we institute government. Remember this happened just after Paris,
public safety is a very legitimate concern. Also, why are Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or
the Gulf States taking in a single refugee? The Saudis have the money and the capacity to to do this.
They have tents used only during the hajj that house thousands upon thousands. Where is that wonderful,
charitable side of Islam?
I wish the world were different. I don´t harbor prejudice against anyone. Those that want to come
and live, grow and contribute to American civilization, Come, please!! But our world is very dangerous,
and we have created enemies that seek to do harm to our society and civilization in anyway that they
can. We have to protect ourselves and our nation. I wish beyond wishing, that it was someone besides
the Donald saying these things, but, it is what it is. I am not gonna shoot the messanger cuase I dont
like his personality, or because I would not be friends with someone like him.
Illegal immigration could likely be enforced in some industries (on the lower paid scale in garment
making sweatshops and so on). And this could probably best be done by prosecuting the employers doing
the hiring. But I'm not at all convinced the country could run without immigrants entirely. Who would
pick the crops? Ok maybe lots of people at a $15 an hour minimum wage. But at current compensation?
Though I don't know if this really needs to be done via illegal immigration, it could be done by much
more formalized guest worker programs I suppose.
Or, we could just let the market work. You WILL get American workers to perform just about any job
if you pay them enough. Obviously, the reasonable price point for labor is currently well below
what a US citizen will accept. But if I offered a million dollars to get my lawn mowed, I would have
a line out the door of American workers begging to have the job.
Guest workers are just another way to depress US citizens' wages. And immigration reform is best
tackled at the employer level, like you said - anybody who doesn't make this part of his or her "reform"
plan is not to be taken seriously. (I regularly mention this to conservatives, and they always look
for a way to justify going after the powerless immigrants anyway.)
High wages can encourage more automation or substitution of crops that require less manual labor
or even cause people to exit farming as uneconomic.. But the number of workers employed in farming is relatively small.
The World Bank has the USA workforce at 161 million in 2014 and if about 2% of this workforce is
employed in farming, this is about 3.2 million people throughout the USA. And the 3.2 million count is probably not all illegal immigrant workers. This report suggests government price supports have encouraged more people to work in agriculture,
implying that the government is indirectly creating low wage jobs by price supports.
From the above pdf. "For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support
in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector."
I am of the opinion that the law of one price will apply if there is relatively free movement of
workers, legally or illegally, across borders.
Note, Trump never suggests e-verify and employer enforcement, which would be a low cost way of enforcing
citizen employment and would avoid a costly "great wall".
Trump and HRC's investments are probably more profitable due to a lower labor cost influenced by
low wage workers.
And people don't OPPOSE his restrictions on Muslim immigration because they feel so charitable towards
and accepting of Muslims.
We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for
the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated. And we've allowed our
own civil liberties to be radically infringed. All because " THEY hate us for our 'freedoms.'
" Who the hell do you think THEY are?
But it's Trump who is hateful, prejudiced, divisive and bigoted? As if "welcoming" some immigrants
from countries that we callously destroyed perfectly absolves those who were busy waiting in line for
the newest i-gadget and couldn't be bothered to demand an end to the slaughter.
Get a clue. Trump's not talking about murdering anybody. And no amount of puffed up "outrage" and
name-calling is going to get the stain out. Not to mention it's the most sane and humane way to protect
the "homeland" from the "terrorism" that we, ourselves, created.
"We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries
for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated."
Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is
worse than Trump's ban.
"I'm against all immigration, as it's merely a lever to lower wages." "I'm against the immigration
of muslims, because they're bad terrorists." There is a difference in these two statements.
You are correct that there is too much immigration to the U.S., and it causes economic and environmental
problems. However, Trump's Muslim ban would cover more than immigration. He would also ban temporary
visits by Muslims (except for the mayor of London, I suppose).
I object very strongly to Muslim extremism, and a lot of Muslims have extremist views. But not all
of them do. And many Christians, Hindus, and whatever also have extremist views which should be opposed.
Trump's not proposing a bad on travel by extremist Christians; he's singling out Muslims because they
scare millions of Americans. It's demagoguery.
You are not quite right there. Trump supporters do indeed want to ban Christian immigrants as well
(the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico, central, and South America are Christians
of some sort) although in the case of Christians the excuse is "violent crime" since obviously Trump
supporters can not disparage Christians specifically for their Christianity. Seriously, watch any Trump
speech and you'll see that he spends more time talking about why all American (Christian) immigrants
need to be banned (crime) than why Muslim immigrants need to be banned (terror). Economic insecurity
is at the root of all of it.
Has Trump demanded that Christians from Europe or Canada be prevented from entering the U.S.? I'm
pretty sure he hasn't. If he's really motivated by economic reasons, there's no need to specify a particular
religion, such as Islam, or a particular nationality, such as Mexicans.
People from Europe and Canada already have high salaries. Or they are perceived to have high salaries
in their home countries. IE they are not percieved as an economic threat. I guarantee you, show me a
poor, third world country that is sending a lot of people to US right now and and I'll show you an ethnic
groups that faces some prejudice. Come on, it's not well paid people with stable jobs and incomes who
are going around being prejudiced against immigrants. It's the poor and the desperate who are doing
it.
There is a reason for that. Ignoring that reason and pretending that it's some bizarre and unfathomable
psychological illness just coincidentally affecting people who are also offing themselves from despair
left and right isn't going to make it go away. Rather, you are inviting something terrible to happen.
The Germans didn't decide to follow Hitler because times were good, and a friendly PR campaign encouraging
openness and acceptance among the poor misguided racists and immigrant haters out there will do exactly
nothing to help matters.
I don't think anyone (most anyone anyway) would disagree that there are plenty of Muslims who are
not extremists. The problem for us is, how do you tell the difference? The San Bernadino shooter was
a health inspector, had a wife, kids, a middle class job, ties to the community and still decided to
shoot up his co-workers with his wife in tow. Plenty of the European ISIS recruits come from middle
class families that are seemingly well-adjusted. If these people (keep in mind Farook was a US citizen)
can become terrorists, how can we possibly screen new entrants with any sort of efficacy?
I'd say it's probably worth the miniscule risk of possible immigrants turning out to be terrorists
if there was some other benefit to having them come in, but if we agree there's too much immigration
to the US already and it is hurting actual US citizens, what exactly is the upside to keep allowing
Muslims in?
By the way, I've been lurking on this site for a few weeks now, first time commenter. It's nice to
find some quality discussion on the internet. Nice to meet everyone.
Where are these "extremist Christians" burning and burying people alive, beheading hostages, blasting
away at crowds in night clubs? "Christian extremism" is a figment of your imagination. The attempt to
equate Moslem violence with conservative Christians is utterly absurd. Do you seriously believe that
soime Amish dude is going to run amuck in a New York night club and slaughter hundreds of people?
Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers
"The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild
of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers
for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.
But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.
However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim
analyst said to be greatly offended.
A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing
in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.
But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed
he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the
practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' – Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.
The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine
by a source at the Pentagon."
Disheveled Marsupial . whilst I understand the acts committed transcend time and political party's .
never the less in – The Name Of – can not be white washed away
Did you manage to miss Trump's point in the video that the US has killed millions in the Middle East,
and that if US presidents had gone to the beach for the last 15 years. everyone would have been better
off? And that we murder people by drone in addition to all our undeclared wars? You are seriously pretending
Christians not only have blood on their hands, but started these wars and have killed people in vastly
bigger numbers than we have? I'm not defending terrorists, but your position is a remarkable airbrushing.
The worst domestic terrorist the U.S. ever produced, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't Amish, yet neither was
he Muslim. Denying people the opportunity to immigrate here– based solely on religion– contradicts the
principles of tolerance on which this country was founded.
Yah, this is a Great Country, isn't it, where everyone has the right to own assault weapons, and
the opportunity to assemble and detonate giant bombs hidden in rental trucks, and you can do pretty
much whatever you can get away with, depending on one's degree of immunity and impunity and invisibility
Eric Rudolph and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., are more examples of Christian terrorists. Outside the country,
there's Anders Breivik (well, he's only partially Christian, but he's definitely not Muslim).
I get your point from a labor standpoint but who gets to decide to shut the door and say 'no more
room at the inn'? Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the
descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
PS: I haven't heard this talked about much but does anyone really believe Trump is serious with all
this immigrant-bashing rhetoric? If he is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, he got there at
least in part, and likely in large part by exploiting cheap labor. While I've never stayed in a Trump
property to see for myself I'm guessing that all the hotel employees aren't direct descendants of the
Daughters of the American Revolution.
Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants
of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
Everybody outside of Africa, including "First Peoples" (if I understand that phrase correctly), is
a descendant of immigrants. The ancestors of the Amer-Indians (probably) came from Siberia over the
Bering land bridge during the late ice age.
It might be hypocritical for an actual immigrant to advocate restrictions on immigration, but that's
not the case for descendants of immigrants. But if there are restrictions, they shouldn't be based on
religion or race.
I don't really think shutting down immigration is the answer. It's not practical and isn't likely
to solve the problems blamed on immigration even if you could keep people out.
People don't leave their countries en masse unless there's some kind of disaster. A little less imperialism
turning nations to rubble would be a much better solution.
So you believe that no people, anywhere, ever, have a right to determine who can join their community,
contribute to their community, or undercut their community's wages and values. Except if some "First
Peoples" show up and endorse the idea? Do they have divine right of kings or something? What if we got
one Indian to agree? A plurality of them?
If it was right for the natives to resist the destruction of their way of life in 1492-1900, and
it was, it is right for the natives to resist of the destruction of their way of life now. Even if those
natives' skin now comes in multiple colors.
Well, I have trouble believing that Trump is serious about his TPP-bashing and Iraq-war-bashing,
I have trouble believing Trump's words are credible on just about any issue.
It's going to be a rough four years, whether Trump wins or loses.
Well, Sanders still has a chance, although he's a long shot. Democratic voters in Kentucky, Oregon,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and the District of Columbia have a chance to save the nomination for him.
In Puerto Rico, Montana, and North Dakota, the election events are open, so anyone who's registered
can vote for Sanders. In California, registered independents can also vote for Sanders.
If its hypocritical, perhaps we should live with that if it is also reality-based and pragmatic.
As in " we've got a good thing going here and we don't need nobody else muscling in on our sweet racket".
Separately, many advocates of ILLEGAL immigration carefully pull a sleight-of-mouth bait-and-switch
between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration. Accepters of carefully controlled legal immigration
can still reject ILLEGAL immigration for pragmatic social-survival reasons.
Quite simply, the idea of banning Muslims entry to the U.S. is an affront to the very nature of the
American experiment, of plurality, equality, and religious freedom. However, recent events in Europe,
specifically the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere show that some young Muslim men are a problem.
So are some young American men. An issue we need to wrestle with is how to reduce this problem. Such
problems are not about religion, they are cultural, they are about interpersonal respect and behavior.
But, the West, broadly speaking, has shown horrendous disrespect to Moslems. The U.S. has attacked wedding
parties and funerals, destroyed cities and countries, behaving like Crusaders. Perhaps were the West
to display less barbarism toward Moslems, they would express more respect toward us. Seems worth a try.
He doesn't have to mean anything. Trump needs to drive potential Democratic turnout down. On one
hand, reminding people how awful Hillary is effectively destroys volunteer efforts which is how voters
get registered and identified for gotv. The other side is what is the perception of the average Democratic
voter of Hillary's record. Hillary supporters have pushed the "tested," "likely to win, " and "inevitable"
arguments for a long time now. How many people in the potential electorate understood Hillary was a
hawk when they voted or didn't bother to show up? Bernie used words such as "poor judgement" for fear
of being labeled sexist. Trump won't hold back.
Perhaps, Trump was a mole, but what can Bill offer that the GOP can't? Air Force One might not be
the most luxurious plane, but its the Air Force plane wherever the President is. Thats respect no one
can buy. Reagan was carted through the White House, so why not Trump?
Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare.
That would sure make things interesting. He could win.
It ain't over. She's got one countermove left which is to somehow get Bernie on the ticket and grab
the enthusiastic and politically correct (if not fully-informed) millenial vote. Otherwise the dilution
of the blue vote in the swing states will loom large. James Carville, astute handicapper that he is,
has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary.
Sanders on the ticket would only undermine Sanders. This Is about the DLC or the status quo. The
length of Sanders career has made him credible, but Hillary has already lost this same race to an empty
suit. The Democrats have bled support since Obama went full Reagan, but in many ways, this is a conflict
between Democratic elites and their loyalist followers and everyone else. Accepting assimilation will
only hurt Sanders. Forcing a Vice President onto Hillary such as Gabbard would be a far better aim.
Sanders supporters aren't interested in a status quo candidate, supported by the usual list of villains.
Hillary can get a begrudging vote, but she will never endive enthusiasm. Bernie and Hillary uniting
will only annoy people.
Yes, and then, as his long history with customers, contractors, vendors and creditors has shown,
he'll fuck us.
Please don't take this as advocacy for the Other One, but Donnie's entire career is based on screwing
people over; this is just another, albeit far bigger, hustle.
Don't think for a second that you could rely on him to follow through honestly about anything; it's
always and forever about Donnie.
Hey, there's at least a 1% chance that Trump won't go out if his way to screw the American people
considering the blackbox nature of his candidacy, whereas there is at least a 100% chance that HRC will
screw the American people hard. And add in the fact that she is a known psychopath with an itchy trigger
finger who will have the Red Button on her desk if she gets into the oval office Yeah. Trump isn't
looking too bad now, is he?
I gotta admit that Trump has always been a wild card for me, and while he is likely to screw us,
Hillary definitely will. Still the only candidate worth supporting in any conceivable sense is Bernie.
Given his gleeful endorsement of torture, advocacy for war crimes, nods to totalitarianism and fascism,
his own clear psychopathy, along with his racism, xenophobia, and apparent ignorance on everything from
medicine to the environment, and nuclear weapons, yes he looks bad, even in comparison with Hillary
Clinton , which says a great deal about just how awful he truly is.
I'm personally more frightened by Trump than Clinton. I've lived through almost 8 years of Obama,
plus Bush and Clinton how much worse than those could another 4-8 years of the same be? Trump is a
terrifying like my house on fire. But at the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to vote
for the Green with a clear conscience.
Perhaps we'll get lucky, and Hillary's campaign will collapse before the convention. Bernie would
be the first candidate I could really vote for (and who'd have a real chance at winning).
Why not put your vote where your words are? We're Senator Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, my
vote would be his. If he's not, and he endorses Secretary Clinton, then my vote goes to Doctor Jill
Stein, my favorite candidate anyway. Given the momentum Sanders has generated, were he, instead of supplicating
himself to Clinton following her coronation, to stand behind Ms. Stein Only in my dreams. Sigh
The DLC Third-Way Clintonite Obamacrats will not let Bernie become nominee no matter what. If the
party can't coronate Clinton, the party will try to bolt the severed head of Joe Biden onto Clinton's
headless body . . and run THAT.
That right there is what convinced me that the woman is a psychopath. She should have been carried
out out of the interview in a straight jacket, and yet there are some people who trying to make her
president. Trump may be a narcissist, but I would not say that he's psychotic.
If nothing else you need to support Trump for the survival of humanity.
Thinking about a Trump/hillary_clinton. contest reminds me of the movie 'The Sting'; where a couple of honest
con men take down a dishonest con man who killed their friend. I see Hillary as the dishonest con man.
In reality Trump is NOT to the left of Hillary on universal healthcare. Read his website.
Look since the guy is a major presidential candidate whether one likes that or not, I have no problem
directing people to his website. See how he puts his actual policy positions, such as they are, in his
own words.
Interventionism and trade remain to be seen as personally I think his positions on them are likely
to still uh evolve as they say during the campaign season. So I'm leaving the verdict out there.
I brought up this idea right when he became the presumptive nominee but this isn't really a pivot
left. He's always been less of a hawk than Hillary. One of the few positions he has been relatively
consistent on. I see him biding his time for a full pivot until Bernie is out of the picture. Here's
to hoping that doesn't happen.
My apologies, my friend. Didn't mean to step on you. Meant it as a concurrence. Sipping coffee slowly
today. You're one of my favorite people here for your regularly spot on, insightful comments.
Yes, my big effort to tell myself that Life Under Trump may not be as horrible as I fear is that
the record of outsider presidents (Carter) and celebrity governors (Schwarznegger and Jesse Ventura)
is they get very little done.
Modern governors are bound by devolution and mandates. They are just glorified city managers with
the staff to do the city manager's job. Even popular, insider governors can do very little. The President
can set the terms by which the governors operate.
I'm concerned that HRC will get more done than the Donald, but little of HRC's actions will be positive.
California handled Schwarznegger without too many problems as he tried unsuccessfully to "break down
boxes".
He replaced, via recall, the forgettable democratic Governor Gray Davis who simply disappeared from
politics.
As I recall, Davis papered over the CA energy crisis until after the election, figuring that when
the s**t hit the fan, he'd have been safely reinstalled in office.
I see HRC as possibly getting more wars started, TPP/TTIP approved, a grand bargain done on SS, and
providing more coddling to the financial, medical and insurance industries.
If many or all of HRC's possible negative accomplishments will not be done by Trump, then that could
justify electing a president who accomplishes little..
Yea Schwarznegger was ok. He made a few very devoted enemies in a few unions. But he was probably
far better on pushing environmental issues than Jerry fracking Brown ever was or will be. If it was
him versus Jerry at this point, I might very well prefer Arnold.
I think Trump at least understands that you can't take money from people who don't have any. His
casino enterprise in Atlantic City may have taught him that.
Like Anne Amnisia's link yesterday, I feel like I know where I stand with a Mussolini and can envision
taking a bullet honorably in resistance where the DNC method has been slowly killing me my whole adult
life and, short of Bernie, I can't see how to resist!
If he's ineffectual and doesn't start more wars, at least its more time to organize and Trump's the
kind of "leader" that might give focus to resistance.
Yves, I wish I thought you were right. But The Duck is so bizarre, so definitively unhinged, that
no one can predict what he'll do. He changes positions as the wind blows. And when he follows any philosophy
at all, it's the "Conservative" philosophy. He doesn't believe in global warming. He once said that
there should be NO minimum wage. I'm a Bernie fan, not a Hillary fan, but I would never, ever take the
risk of letting the Hare-Brained Jabberwocky into any position of power, which means, probably, that
I have to vote for Hillary, and even start sending her money after the primaries. Probably.
His healthcare plan on his campaign website is the usual Republican gibberish – repeal Obamacare,
sell insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid.
He suggested 20-30,000 troops to Syria in response to a debate question, then said he would never
do that, but send " air power and military support" instead. (
LINK )
edit: Position on the website is also to give veterans the ability to "choose" healthcare outside
the VA system. (I'm not knowledgeable to say if this would actually help current pressing VA issues,
but it is a move from a national public health service model to a private care model, so not leftward).
Thanks for that. I think the general idea holds, though: it's a populist remake of politics, and
I think if Trump stakes out some 'unconventional' positions that are to the 'left' of HRC, he could
beat her.
Well, if by left you meant 'left' then we agree :) His appeal is much broader, though IMO a combination
of rightward demagoguery and leftward populist-i-ness.
That VA notion is a dagger pointed at the heart of all those people who for whatever reason, "took
the King's shilling" or drew the short straws in the draft lotteries or, before that, were nailed and
"inducted" just by living in heavy-draft-quota areas. And of course the Greatest Generation, so many
of whom got drug into earlier US imperial wars (Narrative notwithstanding.)
Sending GIs to docs outside the VA system (itself under siege for generations now by the same shits
who bring on the Forever War that generates ever more damaged people needing those "services"), to docs
who in my experience pretty uniformly have zero knowledge of vet-specific problems and diseases and
injuries, who will be paid how much to treat what quota of veterans, again? Crucifying GIs on the HMO
cross, so people can pretend there's "care" for them, via docs who are even more likely than VA docs
(who at least have some protections against arbitrary rules and policies and firings, in a "system"
run by many who institutionalize actual CARE as the main idea) to "go along with the minimization-hurry-up-and-die
program"?
The whole notion is straight Rule #2: "GO DIE, FOKKER! And do it quietly, out of sight, and with
minimum fuss, in a structure that so diffuses the abuses over space and time that it's extremely difficult
for the affected population to even gather the numbers to show how bad it is." Straight "more continuing
more opaque fog of war" bullshit. The same kind of sales BS as used to sell the rest of neoliberalist
misery ("Don't whine now, fools - you voted for it, I have the validated results of the elections right
here, so now it's All Nice And Legal, seeee?) from NAFTA and preceding frauds and vast FIREs, on up
to the present scams.
In the meantime, the Military-Industrial Juggernaut continues to gain mass and momentum. Trump can
natter about "war in the Mideast is a bad deal for the US" (Mideast seemingly not including AfPak, China,
Africa, South America, etc.) as a "bad deal." But will he have any interest in spooling down the turbines
on the enormous Milo Minderbinder Enterprises machine that is daily being "upgraded" and "up-armored"
and "re-weaponed" and "re-doctrined" and "mission-creeped," with the happy participation of every business,
large and small, that can wangle or "extend" a procurement or "study" contract to expand and lethality
and simple bureaucratic-growth size and incompetence (as a military force, in the old sense of what
armies are supposed to do for the Emperoro) of the monster, even as we blog participants do our mostly
ineffectual (if intellectually pleasing) nattering?
Civilian Control of the Military is a dishonest myth - true only in the sense that the Captains of
MICIndustry and drivers of "policy" are not currently Active Duty, though they all, along with the generals
(who live like kings, of course) belong to the same clubs and dip deeply into the same MMT Cornucopia.
And the MIC, from what I read, is quite open and pleased about the state of affairs
I would argue that the MIC is simply part of the 20 percent that derive their middle class existence
by serving at the beck and call of the 1 percent. You are describing the symptoms and not the disease.
We are in the grip of "credentialled" doctors and lawyers. Just as most litigation and most of what
lawyers do is destructive to the average person, it is estimated that half of all surgeries done in
the US are unnecessary. the HIC (health industrial complex) has brainwashed the public to believe that
we need $20,000 per month medications and artificial discs. As you have doubtless seen the third leading
cause of death in the US is medical mistakes. They happen in the VA and in the private sector. Maybe
the notion of more medical care is better is simply not valid. At some point we will have to realize
that rationing in a rational way is going to have to happen. I would rather have someone who went to
medical school decide on what is going to be rationed than some lawyer or business administrator.
There sure is a lot packed into that comment. But my experience with VA doctors and other caregivers
(speaking as a retired "private sector" nurse, VA care recipient and former attorney) is that except
for the psychiatrists and some of the docs that perform disability examinations, the VA caregivers actually
provide care, and they seem to do it pretty well, given the constant attrition of resources and burgeoning
case load the neolibs are imposing. Personal tale: the Medicare 'provider" at the full-spectrum clinic
I used to use was all hot to perform a "common surgical procedure that most older men need." A fee-generating
TURP, which pretty rarely improves the victim's life. The VA doc, looking at the same condition and
presentation, noted the down-sides pretty carefully and said that until I was a lot more "restricted,"
there was no way I "needed" any such invasive procedure. But then his income is not influenced by the
number of cuts he makes
Most of what lawyers do any more, and this has been true for a long time, is combat over wealth transfers,
economic warfare. Ever since partnership was killed off as the mandatory form of lawyer business operations,
with attendant personal liability for partner actions, the rule is "eat what you kill, and kill all
you can." Most doctors I know have caregiving as their primary motivation in going into medicine. (Most
nurses, the same to a much greater extent, and since they start with smaller debt and fewer chances
to bleed the patient and the system that bleeds the nurse pretty badly, they can carry that decency
forward.)
Interesting, of course, that more and more doctors have joint MD and MBA credentials. And working
with other operatives, are gradually and maybe inexorably forcing more of their fellows into "medical
cooperatives" like HCA and JSA, where they become salaried wage slaves with productivity targets and
metrics, and thus "rationers" de facto, by having to respond to "metrics" that are all driven by the
basic business model: "More and more work, from fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, for
higher and higher costs, with ever more crapified outcomes for the mope-ery." Although, I might offer,
there are some of my fellow mopes who actually do benefit from those back surgeries (yes, maybe most
of them are unwarranted, but not all) and meds that only cost "$20,000 per month" because of MARKETS.
Imagine Trump winning as a GOP canidate by running to the left of the DNC canidate. The vision of
the GOP having a collective ulcer/Rovian Meltdown is making me giggle like a schoolgirl all day.
Frankly, I'm *much* more worried about HRC in the Whitehouse than I am about Trump. Reason why is
that he's a relative outsider, not an Establishment guy - and there is always Congress to deal with.
Its not like he would have a total dictatorship, whereas HRC would be able to do far more and deeper
damage to the nation.
My position is Sanders or bust, and I say that as a 20-year member of the GOP (now independent).
Like you said, he changes his positions all the time, and Clinton is no doubt a serious warmonger/war
criminal, but he did also say that he would "bomb the s- out of ISIS," which one might also be inclined
to characterize as trigger happy.
I am equally terrified at the prospect of having Clinton or Trump at the nuclear controls, which
is why we should all send Bernie a few bucks today. The MSM have already gone into full Clinton v Trump
general election mode, though that is certain to change once Bernie wins California.
If you read what Trump has said about our foreign policy, he has been consistent in his view that
the US can't and shouldn't be acting as an imperalist. He does not use those words, but he's said this
often enough that I've even linked to articles describing how Trump is willing to depict America as
being in decline, and this as one manifestation. In addition, his foreign policy speech was slammed
basically because it broke with neocon orthodoxy. I have not read it but people I respect and who are
not temperamentally inclined to favor Trump have, and they said it was sensible and among other things
argued that we could not be fighting with China and Russia at the same time, and pumped for de-escalating
tensions with Russia as the country whose culture and interests were more similar to ours than China's.
Having said that, calling out our belligerence and TPP as bad ideas seem to be the only issues on
which he's not been all over the map (well, actually, he has not backed down on his wall either .)
The other reason to think he might stick with this position more consistently than with others is
that his core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among
veterans and active duty soldiers, and it's due to his speaking out against these wars.
Trump can probably get away with continuing to shape shift till Labor Day, since most voters don't
make up their minds till close to the election. It's not pretty to watch him make a bold statement and
then significantly walk it back in the next 24 hours, particularly if it's an issue you care about and
he's said something that is so nuts that it sounds like he cares more about his Nielsen rating than
what makes sense for the country. If he can't put enough policy anchors down by the fall and stick to
them, he will lose a lot of people who might give him a shot out of antipathy to Clinton.
That may well be the case and he was right to call out the Iraq war as a "mistake" during that debate
(given his otherwise unconventional rhetoric, however, I was actually a bit disappointed that he didn't
use the more correct term war crime), but he has also said that he wants to bring back torture and then
some.
As far as I'm concerned though, the race right now is between Clinton and Bernie and I'm fairly confident
that Bernie still has a good chance since he is sure to take California (which, luckily for Bernie,
will seem like a huge surprise).
In a match up between Trump and Clinton my own personal thoughts (that a democratic – i.e. neoliberal
– white house will at least continue to move people to the left, whereas a republican white house will
only galvanize people around bringing another neoliberal to the white house) are irrelevant because
I have virtually no doubt that Trump will win.
Yes, his enthusiasm for torture is pretty creepy and you get a taste of it here indirectly: "That
Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!" While Trump does seem
to genuinely disapprove of all the people our wars have killed for no upside (a commonsense position
in absence among our foreign policy elites), he seems overly confident that we can identify baddies
well and having identified them, we should have no compunction about being brutal with them.
"That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!"
His meaning here is we should have stayed out of it and let the "really bad guy" (Saddam) handle
Al Quaeda. Of course, the Bush neocons dishonestly morphed Saddam into Al Quaeda. You know the rest
of the story.
I'm willing to bet that he's saying a lot of this stuff for his audience–people who are generally
a pretty angry and bloodthirsty lot. I'm not saying that he's not going to come out for peace, love
and contrition when he's elected president, but I think it is safe to say that his rhetoric now is completely
unrelated to how he'd go about actually governing.
OK, so normally that'd be a horrible admission–if the Democrats hadn't had the brilliant idea of
foisting Hillary onto the American people. What a brain-dead move! I myself could have been persuaded
to support Bernie, but Hillary is the Devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned.
One fact that we have to remember is all the people who designed, advocated for, implemented, and
defended "enhanced interrogation" and than who use "Clintonisms" to say we no longer use torture (because
we never did – "enhanced interrogation") AND because we are "rendering" them someplace else and our
friends are doing the enhanced interrogation – well, such lying devious people in my view are far, far
worse than The Donald.
In my view, there appears to be considerable evidence that the US still defacto tortures – and that
is far, far worse than the appalling, but at least truthful statement of how Trump feels. And of course,
pink misting people may not be torture, but it can't be separated.
Again, which is worse:
A. The Donald up front advocates a policy (of torture), people can be mobilized to oppose it. No legalisms,
dissembling, and every other term that can be used to obfuscate what the US is REALLY doing.
B. The US government asserts it no longer tortures. How many readers here have confidence that that
is a factually true statement, that can be said without word games?
Is saying we should torture WORSE than saying we don't torture, but WE ARE???
I feel the same way. It's preferable to have someone take the morally reprehensible pro-torture stance
than to pretend to be against it while secretly renditioning prisoners and so forth.
except for the fake wmds that started it. and abu ghraib. and the reasons the contractors were hung
in fallujah. and the fake alliance between saddam and al quaida. and outing valerie plame when joe wilson
blew the whistle on the fake purpose of the aluminum tubes.
Enough electoral fraud has been evidenced that I think that the numbers are going to be gamed to
be closer to the non-representative polling that flood the MSM. He may win, but they aren't going to
allow him to win by a lot in such a delegate heavy state.
Unfortunately, I think you are quite right that the California numbers will be rigged/gamed. I had
become quite cynical about American politics, thanks to Obama the More Effective Evil's reign and the
Bush and the Supremes Florida gambit back in 2000. But this primary vote rigging has really moved my
marker so far that I am not even sure what word to use what's more cynical than super duper cynical?
So here's an idea I've been pondering how can the people try to prevent or find this? Could we exit
poll outside the voting places? Yes it would be a limited sample of just one local place but it's something
and in aggregate if lots of people were doing this
I too think they might try to game California. And this is quite alarming considering California
is usually too unimportant to even game. I figure the elections are usually honest here, probably because
they just don't matter one whit. But this time it might matter and they might steal the vote.
"core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support
among veterans and active duty soldiers"
This.
People tend to also forget that there's a lot of us Gen-X'ers that were deployed over there over
25 years ago, when it was popular, for the same damned thing. Nothing has changed. Sure, some leadership
folks have been taken out, but the body count of Americans soldiers has only risen,and the Region is
now worse off.
The "first time" we had more folks die from non-combat related accidents than from actual combat.
Some of us are sick of our political and corporate establishment selling out our fellow soldiers and
Veterans, even worse is the way they have been treated when they come home. I'm not a Trump supporter,
but this part of his message not only resonates with me, but angers me further. Why? Because I know
that if Hillary Clinton walks into The Oval Office, even more Americans are going to die for lust of
more power and influence.
HRC is simply the evilest human being I have ever seen in politics in my lifetime. Trump may be an
idiot, crass, authoritarian, and any number of negative things, but he is not "evil" – she is.
If the mash up continues as Clinton v. Trump and barring any character sinking actions of Trump,
this man will win in November. To paraphrase Shivani, Clinton is speaking entirely in high minded self-interest,
while Trump has latched onto and is pressing a actual truths of reality (regardless of his personal
convictions or what he wlll actually do if elected).
Trump is more liberal than Clinton here. What exactly are her redeeming qualities again?
I can't really think of any HRC redeeming qualities. "Retail politicking" doesn't seem to be one
of them. Lambert, you no doubt saw this video of her confronted with rising health insurance costs post-ACA?
Her word salad response doesn't begin to address the real issues
During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner
that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing
benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.
"As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees,
you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family,
go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred
something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide
benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question
that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for
the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover"
"We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you
is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can
afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home."
To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going
up, and doesn't understand why that would ever be the case.
"What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance
because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing
is one of the real challenges."
"There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the
problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to
the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it.
What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand."
"What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't
understand." - this from a woman who ostensibly is an expert on health care delivery?
The link is from Zero Hedge but in any case watch the video. Or wait for it to appear in a Trump
campaign ad:
"Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad" Haha!
I am surprised she didn't pull out the "90% coverage" false-positve. We haven't seen that pony enough.
The notion of imploring "scientific" method here is interesting in light of the party's blood oath to
meritocracy. "There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world
test ". It also implies that the process is natural and no accountability is necessary.
Another great DNC experiment. Throwing the blacks in jail for 20 years over nothing "oh well, we
need to try more!" I cannot imagine being in prison right now for some minor drug offense and hearing
the Clintons spew this nonsense.
Jeff Gundlach, one of the few iconoclasts and reigning king of bonds on Wall Street:
"People are going to start putting greater focus on Hillary (Clinton). Voters are going to say, 'No.
I don't want this,'" he told Reuters. "Hillary is going to evolve into an unacceptable choice. If she
is such a great candidate, how come (Bernie Sanders) is beating her?"
Even more. He's based in LA so there's a 400 mile air gap between him in the goldbugging, glibertarian,
wannabe John Galt culture of the Valley exemplified by Peter Theil.
How about a picture of Gundlach for tomorrow's antidote ?
It is warm heartening to see this site who consistently leaning left warming for the Donald. Clinton
is a horrible candidate, flawed human being and her presidency is guaranteed to be marred by scandal
after scandal and deep polarization.
Bern would be a great choice but he has no chance, the corrupt Democratic establishment will stick with
Clinton.
I inuited months ago that the warming to Donald thing would happen. I have a growing conviction that
most of the people here, maybe even you, are going to vote for Donald in November. Even Jason will vote
for Donald (unless he is being employed by that pro-Hillary super pac which I don't think is the case
but just throwing it out there since there are empirically speaking people being paid to produce pro
Hillary comments on the internet). Barring something truly interesting and novel happening between now
and then that is.
The way things are going now this plane seems set for an effortless autopilot victory for Trump.
I have no doubt that everyone will regret too. They'll even regret before they cast the vote, and do
it anyway. Oh man, that's some truly black humor. OK I'll make an even grander prediction: Trump will
inaugurate the post postmodern era (whatever historians eventually decide to call it) where our entire
conception and perception of reality as a society undergoes a radical and unpleasant change. It's a
unique time to be alive. Aren't we lucky?
Wait. I just had an incredible insight. We're already out of the postmodern era, and I can date it
from Sept. 11, 2001as the exit. Historian are going to say that this was a short era, a transitional
era of illusions, delusions and fear, where complete non-reality Trumped the real for an ever so short
period of time. But now we're going to be shocked awake, and what's coming next is going to be incredible
and horrific. Damn, it's such an awesome and strange feeling to see things so clearly all of a sudden!
It's really happening. So this why I've been obsessing over this stuff much recently.
I tried to find a short clip of Brunhilde riding her horse into the flames in Gotterdammerung right
before Valhalla collapses, which is what voting for Trump would be like for me, but I couldn't find
out.
There was an antiwar left on the msm during the Bush years? Kerry's campaign message was "Ill be
W 2.0." Kerry himself was that awful, but there was no antiwar left in the msm. I thought the absence
was the direct cause for the rise of blogs. The real crisis is the shift of websites such as TalkingPointMemo
and CrooksandLiars to Team Blue loyalist sites or when Digby brought on Spoonfed.
Yep. 2006 was when the Dems decapitated the left blogosphere, and as a result we have no independent
media, except for lonely outposts like this one, and whatever those whacky kidz are doing with new media.
I keep donating to Bernie because even if he somehow doesn't win the nomination, he can force Hillary
to be much more like him – if HRC wants Bernie voters to clinch the deal for her. Bernie staying in
and fighting to the end (and my money says he wins) is great and if Hillary doesn't become Bernie, then
the only one that can beat Trump is Bernie, and the super-delegates have got to see that.
Bottom line, Hillary has to become Bernie to beat Trump. Is that going to happen? We'll see.
Bernie staying in until the very end serves two purposes (he CAN still win, especially when he carries
California). The first is, again, he CAN win. The second purpose is to prevent Hillary from shifting
right the way she REALLY wants to for the general. She will have to keep tacking left to fend off a
major slide towards Bernie. The "center" (actually right wing) is out of reach for her as long as Bernie
is there.
Sorry to rain on your thesis, but absent the nomination, all Bernie can do is to force Hillary to
*message* more like him. With her, the operative phrase is "words are wind". There is nothing whatever
to keep her from immediately ditching every progressive-sounding campaign stance once she is in office,
just as Obama did. And I guarantee you that if she does become president, that is precisely what she
will do.
Trump knows the counterweight better than anyone. He's the guy you keep on the job because he's entertaining,
knowing he will sell you out if you let him, and you let him, when it serves a purpose, to adjust the
counterweight.
POLITICS, RE feudalism, is a game, and he loves it, despite the heartburn. All that debt inertia.preventing
the economic motor from gaining traction is psychological. That much he knows, which is a lot more than
the rest of the politicians, making him a better dress maker. But like the others, he has no idea what
to do about it.
He vascillates to maintain options, including a path to the future, while others rule themselves
out. Of course hiring good people is the answer, but most Americans are politicians, like anywhere else,
wanting to know little more than their cubicle, because the net result of majority behavior is punishing
work, in favor of consumers, competing for advantage.
If you spent this time developing skills and finding a spouse that won't cut your throat, you will
do quite well. The casino isn't life; it just keeps a lot of people busy, with busy work. Government
is hapless.
It's hard to know if Trump sees militarization and imperialism as bad because they're bad or bad
because it's not Donald Trump in charge, with a great big straw sucking Benjamins between those rectally
pursed lips. It may take an agent provocateur bullshitter to call bullshit, but that says nothing about
what Trump will do as president. What's likeliest, given his record, is an opportunistic seizure of
the Treasury to rival the occupation of Iraq. When I gaze into my crystal ball at a Trump administration
I see cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions, just like the gold
letters spelling Trump plastered over everything he lays his stubby little hands on. Because the Clintons
are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing. It's a farcical contest, and every way, we lose.
You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter
what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman.
He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters
of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man
says or does.
I don't trust Trump, and although, yes, he has says a few things that I agree with – and usually
stuff that no one else at his level will ever say – it's essentially meaningless to me. I think Trump
would be a disaster as President, and my "take" – which is based on my own opinion – is that he'll be
Grifter El Supremo and make sure that he walks off with stacks and gobs and buckets of CA$H. For him.
And if the country really tanks and goes bankrupt? So What?
Plus all this about Trump not being a War Hawk? I don't trust it. With the other breath, he's constantly
spewing about "building up" the damn military, which, allegedly Obama has "weakened." Like, we really
need to be spending another gazillion of our tax dollars "building up" the Military??? WHY? If The Donald
is so against all these foreign wars, then why do we need to spend even more money on the Military???
All that signals to me is that Donald expects to go large on MIC investments for HIMSELF.
Story time: so, when I married the Mrs, I offered to fix the mother in laws old bug. She turned me
down and has since demand that I fix what is now a rust bucket, not worth one manhour of my time, going
around to the neighbors, all critters on govt checks rapidly falling behind RE inflation, to build consensus
to the end, among women using men and men using women, all of them having thrown their marriages under
the bus, as if majority vote is going to get me to do something I have no intention of doing.
When hospital gave Grace that shot and sent her to the ICU, per Obamacare expert protocol, all the
critters went into CYA mode, and ultimately called the family, to confirm that the wife and I must be
on drugs, which they did. I don't blame the morons running the court system, and she's the mother in
law.
That debt is nothing more than psychology, but it is more effective than a physical prison. Silicon
Valley is the as is abutment, simply reinforcing stupid with ever greater efficiency, but it is the
endpoint on a collapsing bridge with no retreat, because automation has systematically destroyed the
skill pool and work ethic required to advance further, replacing them with make work and make work skills.
Competing with China and the Middle East to build carp infrastructure to keep As many economic slaves
as busy as possible is not the path forward. As you have seen, govt data is far closer to being 180
degrees wrong than being correct, as designed, which you should expect, from those holding out ignorance
as a virtue.
There are far more elevators that need fixing than I could ever get to, and I am quite capable of
fixing them in a manner that generates power. Who becomes president is irrelevant.
My family in Ohio is massive, they made a killing on RE and currency arbitrage, after selling all
the family farms, and have nothing real to show for it, but rapidly depreciating sunk costs, waiting
to do it again. Rocket scientists.
If the GWOT has cost us $4 Trillion, somebody made $4 Trillion.
That/those somebodies are not about to give up the kind of behavior that makes that
kind of money.
If there is any real, actual third-rail in American politics, it's the MIC budget.
This fact has never been openly acknowledged, even though the American people are pretty sure that
threatening the will of the MIC cost the life of at least one well known politician.
Trump may talk about that enormous waste now, but after his private screening of the Zapruder film
he's going to STFU and get with the program like all the rest.
OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be
ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that.
if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done
Exactly my feeling. He will be hated and fought constantly, whereas Clinton (if nominated) is guaranteed
to screw things up. Like her husband (who by the way will be there whispering in ears and making passes
at maids) she will triangulate on issues and pass destructive GOP legislation and likely drag this country
into another foreign policy blunder, where I am betting more young, under-educated, poor citizens with
no prospects or options will be sent to slaughter (themselves and others).
EH? I think The Donald will just go Large on MIC investments for himself. He talks a good game, but
he keeps saying that he's going "build up" the Military, even as he's stating that we shouldn't be fighting
in all of these wars. Why, then, do we need to "build up" the Military?
No one ever said Trump was stupid. I'm sure he's rubbing his grubby tiny vulgarian mitts with glee
thinking about how he, too, can get in on that sweet sweet SWEET MIC payola grift scam. Count on it.
Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone
else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it.
Watt4Bob
May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm
"OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored,
get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that."
I too view that as a feature and not a bug. Seriously, in the last 10, 20, 30 years, I would ask,
what law is viewed as making things better? Was Sarbanes Oxley suppose to do something??? Maybe the
law is OK, they just won't enforce it
I know Obamacare is relentlessly disparaged here, others think it is better than nothing.
Many of you youngsters don't realize this, but there was a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that
there were no deductibles, co-pays, narrow networks, and that you had confidence that your doctor may
have over treated and tested you, but you weren't afraid that you would die because it was too expensive
to treat you.
Just like I don't care if GDP goes up because i won't see any of it, I don't care about all the cancer
research because I am certain I won't be able to afford it, even though I have health "insurance" .
"Employer-sponsored retiree health coverage once played a key role in supplementing Medicare," observe
Tricia Neuman and Anthony Damico of the foundation. "Any way you slice it, this coverage is eroding."
Since 1988, the foundation says, among large firms that offer active workers health coverage, the
percentage that also offer retiree health plans has shrunk to 23% in 2015 from 66% in 1988. The decline,
which has been steady and almost unbroken, almost certainly reflects the rising cost of healthcare and
employers' diminishing sense of responsibility for long-term workers in retirement.
.
Financial protection against unexpected healthcare costs is crucial for many Medicare enrollees, especially
middle- and low-income members, because the gaps in Medicare can be onerous. The deductible for Medicare
Part A, which covers inpatient services, is $1,288 this year, plus a co-pay of $322 per hospital day
after 60 days. Part B, which covers outpatient care, has a modest annual deductible of $166 but pays
only 80% of approved rates for most services.
====================================================
80% of 100,000$ means 20K is left over – with cancer treatments*, kidney treatments, cardiovascular
treatments, such a scenario is more likely than a lot of people will imagine.
*treatments don't include those foam slippers that they charge you 25$ for .
But the consequences of the shift away from employer-sponsored retiree benefits go beyond the rise
in costs for the retirees themselves. Many are choosing to purchase Medigap policies, which fill in
the gaps caused by Medicare's deductibles, cost-sharing rates and benefit limitations. That has the
potential to drive up healthcare costs for the federal government too. That's because Medigap policies
tend to encourage more medical consumption by covering the cost-sharing designed to make consumers more
discerning about trips to the doctor or clinic. Already, nearly 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees had a Medigap
policy - almost as many as had employer-sponsored supplemental coverage.
..
The trend is sure to fuel interest on Capitol Hill in legislating limits to Medigap plans. Such limits
have supporters across the political spectrum: Over the past few years, proposals to prohibit Medigap
plans from covering deductibles have come from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the centrist
Brookings Institution and conservatives such as Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
================================
please stop going to the doctor, its expensive .just expire
First time poster, long time lurker. You don't think that Sanders success in the race pushed HRC
to embrace debt free 4 year public college?
We'll see what specific policy commitments come out of the convention, but I don't think the current
campaign would have the same issues if Bernie wasn't there.
Please don't mistake me either, ideologically I'm with Sanders and was supporting him until the NYDN
article and the delegate math became pretty much impossible. If I had my druthers, he'd be the candidate,
but it looks quite quite unlikely now.
I'm concerned that HRC will pivot after the election and give support to the TPP but even then I'm
still anti-Trump more.
Actually, a poster with your email commented in 2014 under another handle. There seems to be a rash
lately of infrequent or new commenters who "support Sanders but" or "supported Sanders until" lately.
For some reason.
That said, you could be right on college (
see here for a comparison of the plans ). It's just that Clinton's talking point about not wanting
to pay for Trump's children is so unserious I can't believe the plan is serious.
I dunno. I see a lot of people decry Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, but Hillary's record as
SecState was incredibly violent toward Muslims internationally and also includes presiding
over a defacto immigration ban from specific "problem" states- banning people for security reasons being
much more tactful than banning Muslims per se.
The nativist appeal Trump is making doesn't go much farther than naming the intent of policy Hillary
has been actually pursuing. Trump wants to use the demonisation of Muslims since 9/11 as a political
lever to gain power and will use anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant (weird to see the two conflated so frequently)
sentiment to achieve specific political goals, preferably sublating it into keynesian infrastructure
programs (wall building or whatever). Hillary intends to keep bombing societies that are increasingly
visibily disintegrating from the cumulative effects of climate change, colonial oppression and marginalisation,
foreign intervention, etc. It's not obvious who gets the benefit of the doubt in a lesser evil contest.
Trump is breaking the "lesser of two evils" argument.
Let's be clear about something here. The "lesser of two evils" is not an argument to find which candidate
is "the less evil." It's an argument used to justify the assumption that your candidate is the less
evil of the other. While else is it that Democrats say Clinton is the less evil while Republicans argue
that Trump is the less evil.
It's obvious watching leftist pundits (many of whom I respect) come out and flatly assert "Clinton
is the better of the two." And there heads usually explode right off their shoulders when they run into
someone who disagrees or is simply skeptical of the claim.
The real problem is when Trump dose speak on trade and war policy, he exposes the fallacy of the
argument. We can't take Trump's word for it – even though we already know Hillary is likely lying, so
it's still a tie. The notion that Trump might actually be honest here isn't even permitted to be considered
because that would make Trump the less evil of the two.
The problem I keep running into is just how do you measure "evil?" This gets even harder to do when
you can't take either at their word. There is always some deeper calculous we are expected to project
on the candidates in order to arrive at our pre-supposed conclusion that our candidate is always the
less evil.
It's the main reason I will not be voting for either.
Forgive me for piling on today Btw,.anyone know who this Carmen Yarrusso is? Excerpt from Counterpunch
(today)
"Trump may be a (loose-cannon) unpredictable evil. But then, based on her long track record, Clinton
is a very predictable evil. In fact, Trump is left of Clinton on such things as legal marijuana, NATO
aggression, and trade policy. His crazy proposals (e.g. Mexican wall, banning Muslims) are just bluster
with zero chance of becoming reality. If Congress can stop Obama, it can stop Trump. But Clinton has
a predictable pro-war track record (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and a predictable track record of changing positions
for political expediency (e.g. Iraq war, NAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, immigration, gun control,
the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, same-sex marriage). How can you be sure she
won't conveniently change her current progressive positions as president? A Trump presidency just might
force Democratic Party elites to start seriously addressing the populist concerns they now arrogantly
ignore.
If you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils, you're compromising your moral values, you're
condoning the Democratic Party's shoddy treatment of millions of progressives, and you're sabotaging
future real change. You're virtually guaranteeing the Democratic Party elites will put you in this position
again and again. If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe you'll help elect Trump (or
maybe your write-in or third party choice will win). But you'll certainly send a very clear message
to Democratic Party elites that you'll no longer tolerate being ignored, marginalized, or shamed with
false lesser of two evil choices."
lol watching people attack Trump well, not sure if it's Clinton's army out to scare us about the
horrors Trump will cause. now it's like the Devil we know vs the Devil we don't know. Kind of hard to
compare Trump to Hillary. Hillary's effective brand of evil is well established and is quite thorough,
shown by the primary votes in NY and AZ, for example. watching the Elites attack, belittle and completely
ignore the existence of Bernie gives us a little clue of what is in store if Hillary gets her way. Trump
is the "known unknown" to use Rumsfeld terminology.
Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary
this is perhaps the one and only time I ever will vote Republican. and I abhor Republicans. Hillary
has earned her reputation, Trump.. well Trump or no Trump, it won't be Hillary getting my vote. Keeping
Bernie out, we all lose.
No, I don't support the current administration's drone war, nor did I support the horrible Iraq war
of 2003, but that doesn't answer my question. I don't understand "Hillary is lying" as a tautology and
the conclusion being that Trump is a better bet than HRC because of that.
But in regards to your question, do you think that the drone war stance will change in the next administration
whether's it's HRC or Trump? Trump said he wants to get more aggressive on terrorists than we currently
are, explicitly endorsing torture.
Well even Sanders has come out in favor of drones, so probably, unless one is die hard Jill Stein
all the way. Then one's hands are entirely clean if also entirely ineffective.
Yeah, because voting for drone strikes, imperialism and corruption is more effective at getting rid
of those things than not voting for drone strikes, imperialism and drone strikes
Theyre both liars. If youre trusting Donald to not drone strike or trusting Hillary to not torture,
youre being duped.
As for your comment further down about Trump saying he wants to torture people more Its not as if
Obama has stopped Bush's torture regime or closed Guantanamo. Hillary too would continue more things.
Honestly I still dont understand why Trump is so much scarier than Hillary. Their differences are
mostly kayfabe. All that xenophobic racist demagogy Trump is doing? More kayfabe. Im still voting Stein,
because I dont vote for corrupt imperialists.
Stein is likewise kayfabe. If the party had gone with Anderson he might well have pulled a Bernie
in the last general election. That just wouldn't do, so the party was rather brazenly railroaded into
nominating Stein.
Just as the best lies are 99% truth the best con-jobs are the ones containing the maximum amount
of truthiness. Some days I like the things I hear Trump saying, the next he gives me a sick feeling
with chills down my spine. Sure, he's not sticking to the approved neo-con, neo-lib, Washington consensus
script but just how stupid do you have to be to not know that Saddam Hussein was a secular Bathist dictator
who executed anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, especially muslim extremists. Just because
Trump can spout off a truthy factoid that is only news to the brain-dead Fox News masses doesn't mean
he is any more of an honest dealer than Bush Jr. Does anyone think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield were operating
under any illusions that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, they either saw
an opportunity or they engineered an opportunity to do what they wanted to do. Trump has shown himself
to be a bully comfortable with marshaling mob violence or the threat of mob violence. He is an authoritarian
and no defender of civil liberties, habeous corpus or the Geneva convention. He's exactly the type of
megalomanic that would try and seize power in an ailing democracy like our own, and I have no doubts
that if elected he will create some sort of Constitutional crisis that could end in a military coup
or Trump installed as a dictator. He already has a silent pissed-off army of violent brown shirts on
his side. I don't like the way this situation looks and people on the left with intelligence and a grasp
of history are deluding themselves if they think Trump isn't a very dangerous person.
In a possibly unrelated note, I'm 99% sure someone deeply keyed the full length of my car (truck
actually) yesterday while I was surfing for no other reason than my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker right
here in sunny, liberal southern California. Could it have been a Clinton supporter or a joy vandal who
likes keying random people's cars – sure. But if Trump wins I wonder how long it is before halal restaurants
and muslim dry cleaners start getting their windows smashed, then burned. How long before Hindus and
brown people start getting attacked (as a common occurrence, not outlier events that are punished as
they are now) because they are confused as being Muslim or Mexican or deliberately because they just
aren't white and should go home. There's a very nasty underbelly to this Trump thing and I don't like
it.
I agree on the nasty underbelly. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the
millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all.
" I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy.
I don't hear that from Clinton, at all."
Ditto, me too, but I'm not about to cherry-pick Trump's schizophrenic and ever shifting talking points
then soft-peddle candidate Trump while telling people not to worry. I like silver-linings, staying optimistic
and being contrarian (I wouldn't hang out here otherwise) but why ignore the very troubling subtext
in the rest of Trump's speech? The anti-democratic, sneering remarks about suspected terrorists being
executed immediately in Saddam's Iraq instead of "on trial for fifteen years" in pansy-cakes weak, habeas
corpus America. Trump offhandedly mentions; 'Oh by the way, don't buy the lowball collateral damage
numbers you hear from the Pentagon, we're unnecessarily killing a lot of brown people abroad.' But then
he fans the flames of racism with stump speeches about building a wall and banning all muslims from
entering the USA. I can tell you which message his supporters are comprehending if you're unsure. Despite
being a politically heterodox chameleon Trump is showing his true colors. Just because Trump is willing
to break with the orthodoxy while he is campaigning doesn't mean he isn't an aspiring tyrant. Don't
be fooled. Trump isn't enlightened or altruistic, he's a talented demagogue pulling a Con on America-
that's it.
By the way, I wanted to add I am not in any way considering a vote for Hillary if she does in fact
become the Democratic nominee. I am very troubled by the prospect of a President Trump but I will not
allow my vote to be held hostage by the DNC and the very tired "lesser of evils arguments" I realized
my last comment might be construed as a "Trump must be stopped at all costs" Clinton rationalization.
It was not. Trump will be on the conscience of those who vote for him and those who have enabled him.
Maybe we should look at what Trump recently said at AIPAC – y'know, that itsy bitsy little lobby
that seems to strike fear into the hearts of all US politicians Trump included – to get a sense of his
ME policy,
shall we
?
snip
'In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th
Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state."
"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business
a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for
Israel, and for the whole Middle East."
"First, we will stand up to Iran's aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran
is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with
trouble. 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.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, and
GPS systems on rockets. Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from
the Syrian side of the Golan Heights."
Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don't reward that behavior, you confront
it!
It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves.
The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel
it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don't even really know
what's happening.
When I'm president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish
state.
Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas,
and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it's a very difficult situation but when
the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That's what will happen
when I'm president.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and
we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally,
the state of Israel."
Yup, it's like he and Hillary are just night and day, huh?
I mean other than the fact that Hillary actually BACKS the Iran Deal but don't let that get in the
way of a good "but Hillary" meeting.
The two candidates will be identical where it's most important – e.g. w/ Israel and the ME – just
like all of the presidential candidates.
You would think the Obama administration may have taught us something about perceiving reality oh
wait that's right, it really was Hillary and not poor Obama who's been doing all that killing over the
last 8 years and the Donald's really a renegade "outsider" billionaire who's just scaring the pants
off of the Establishment, right?
Wow. Just wow.
Obama Hope Junkies so desperate that they're shooting Trumpodil straight into their minds.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with the topic of the post? The YouTube has nothing to do
with the deplorable Beltway consensus on Israel, of which Trump is a part.
As US-driven wars plummet the Muslim world ever deeper into jihadi-ridden failed state chaos,
events seem to be careening toward a tipping point. Eventually, the region will become so profuse
a font of terrorists and refugees, that Western popular resistance to "boots on the ground" will
be overwhelmed by terror and rage. Then, the US-led empire will finally have the public mandate it
needs to thoroughly and permanently colonize the Greater Middle East.
It is easy to see how the Military Industrial Complex and crony energy industry would profit from
such an outcome. But what about America's "best friend" in the region? How does Israel stand to benefit
from being surrounded by such chaos?
Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through
the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.
A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit
in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian
and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its neighbors." Yinon
incredibly claimed that:
"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run"
According to Yinon, this Balkanization should be realized by fomenting discord and war among the
Arabs:
"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way
to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon."
So, you can see that Trump has said the right things into the right ears – read: AIPAC – as far as
anyone of import is concerned – read: not any of us – and so now he's free to say whatever else he thinks
he needs to.
I mean, Sheldon Adelson endorsed him so he can't be THAT scary to Israel-first billionaires and their
bed-buddies, right?
Ooops, I forgot he's an outsider that everyone's scared of. My bad. Hillary will be so much worse.
Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews has written an insightful article about the damage that has been caused
by both the neocon ideologues' control of US foreign policy and the neoliberals' control of economic
policy, their powerful political and propaganda apparatus, and what we can expect from the legacy political
party candidates for the presidency, focusing on Clinton and her past positions regarding the Middle
East.
It is noteworthy that the dominance of failed neocon and neoliberal policies over the past few decades
has coincided with consolidation and concentration of ownership of corporate media in very few hands.
As with restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and breaking up the TBTFs, reinstating limits on media ownership
and control is an important and necessary measure to breaking the influence these few individuals have
had over national policy.
Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because
Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not
left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to
scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left
of basically all the other politicians today.
Quoting from memory, context foreign policy: "If our Presidents had gone to the beach every day of
the year fifteen years ago, we would have been in much better shape." (Note this includes Bush.)
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
"... This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush." ..."
"... "Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign. And that's exactly what they're doing." ..."
"... Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point, or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished what he needed to accomplish. ..."
"I think it's entirely understandable that what Clinton will try to do is avoid criticizing Obama,
because she desperately needs to recreate the Obama coalition on November the 8th," said Bolton.
"She has gone out of her way, including in her 600-page-long tedious memoir about her days at the
State Department, failing to distance herself from Obama."
This means the "default position" of the Clinton campaign and her friendly media is, "if there's
something wrong in the world, criticize George W. Bush."
"Why not? It worked for Obama. Maybe it will work for her as well," Bolton said. "And I think
the fact that the media are aiding and abetting this approach shouldn't surprise anybody. I think
no matter who the Republican nominee was this year, the media were going to be – as the Wall Street
Journal has so aptly called them – stenographers for the White House and the Clinton campaign.
And that's exactly what they're doing."
Bolton thought Trump "did what he needed to do" at the first presidential debate:
Most people watching 90 minutes of a debate like that don't score it on this debating point,
or that debating point. They look at the entire thing. They want to know about the character of
the people. And I think the fact that Trump was there for 90 minutes and held his own, or more
than, in a format that Hillary Clinton has been familiar with since she was in law school, accomplished
what he needed to accomplish.
My critique of his performance would be that he missed opportunities. For example, you mentioned
the foreign policy section, when they were asked about cyber warfare, and the dangers to the United
States of hacking, and that gave Clinton a chance to give a little college-type lecture on Russia
– by the way, omitting China, Iran, North Korea, and others – I thought at that point Trump could
have talked about her email homebrew server for his entire time, and just drilled that point home.
But, you know, people at home aren't sitting there grading on that basis. I think the second
debate, and the third debate, will be very different, and those – particularly in the media –
who now confidently predict the outcome of the election, based on their take of this debate, are
smoking something.
2) Trade. With only 4 percent of the world's population, we buy almost one-fourth of the world's
goods. Every country is champing at the bit to get into our markets. We have tremendous leverage
on trade that we have not used. We do not want or need trade wars. But we should, in a friendly way,
tell other countries-especially the Chinese-"We want to trade with you, but we can't sustain our
huge trade deficit. You are going to have to find some things to buy from us, too."
3) Immigration.
With 58 percent of the world's population-almost 4 billion people-having to get by on $4 or less
a day, hundreds of millions would come here over the next few years if we simply opened our borders.
Our entire infrastructure-our schools, jails, sewers, hospitals, roads-and our economy as a whole
could not handle such a massive, rapid influx of people. The American people are the kindest, most
generous people in the world, and we have already allowed many millions more than any other country
to immigrate here, legally and illegally. But we must do a much better job enforcing our immigration
laws.
4) Wars. I am now the only Republican left in Congress who voted against going to war in
Iraq. For the first three of four years, it was the most unpopular vote I ever cast. I even once
was disinvited to speak at a Baptist church. Now, it is probably the most popular vote I ever cast.
The American people are tired of permanent, forever wars. While everyone wants a friendly relationship
with Israel, I do not believe the American people will continue to support wars that primarily benefit
Israel but cause thousands of young Americans to be killed or horribly maimed for life.
5) Jobs. Almost any member of Congress, if asked what is the greatest need in their district,
would probably say more good jobs. Radical environmentalists have caused many thousands of U.S. businesses
to go to other countries or close for good. We have ended up with the best-educated waiters and waitresses
in the world. When I was in Vietnam a few years ago, I was told if you wanted to start a business
there, you just went out and did it. The place was booming. It is now apparently easier to start
a small business in some former communist countries than in the supposedly free-enterprise U.S.
... ... ...
Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. represents the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.represents
the 2nd district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
"... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
"... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
"... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
"... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China
in UN Speech
By Mark Weisbrot
President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a
defense of the world's economic and political status quo,
especially that part of it that is led or held in place by
the US government and the global institutions that Washington
controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that
were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is
worth looking at some of the things that media reports on
this speech missed.
"Over the last 25 years, the number of people living
in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of
humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true,
according to World Bank data, but the story of how it
happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that
this progress is a result of the "globalization" that
Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in
the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction
in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion
people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period
China was really the counterexample to the "principles of
open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward,
not backward."
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy.
If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China
accounted for even more of the reduction of the world
population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would
indicate that other parts of the developing world increased
their economic and social progress during the 21st century,
relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did
(as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century).
But China played an increasingly large role in reducing
poverty in other countries during this period.
It was so
successful in its economic growth and development - by far
the fastest in world history - that it became the largest
economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries
through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible
0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3
percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of
billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and
middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few
years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most
countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as
much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)
Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama
refers to is really code for "policies that Washington
supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open
markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent
and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug
for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to
reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise
environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more
broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in
the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial
agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government
approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future
profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if
such laws or regulations are to protect public health or
safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars
in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to
trade sanctions.
In his defense of a world economic order ruled by
Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also
asserted that "we have made international institutions like
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more
representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most
recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an
unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important
decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself;
and it left Washington and its traditional rich country
allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of
votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially
poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the
IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country
governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an
American. It should not be surprising if these institutions
do not look out for the interests of the developing world.
"We can choose to press forward with a better model of
cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world
at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world
sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old
lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."
But the rich country governments led by Washington are not
offering the rest of the world any better model of
cooperation and integration than the failed model they have
been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part
of the problem....
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal
Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor
of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors
Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus,
Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....
An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was
not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He
contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic
product in the past few years with China's often double-digit
pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated
roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15%
of GDP to that goal....
Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that
the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic
growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at
6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is
to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:
Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree
with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.
Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal
conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner
was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self
corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage
programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.
Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal
stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton
economic team include a lot more women and especially focus
on economic policies that help working women and families.
I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush
jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush
had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers
shows why trickle down does not work.
Full employment may have been missing from the 1992
platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by
Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to
drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the
middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax
the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be
accommodating.
He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not
changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets
of the working poor.
"... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
"... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
"... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
"... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
Why are none of the "free trade" members of
Congress pushing to change the regulations that require
doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to
practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are
all protectionist Neanderthals.
Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of
pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is
somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free"
market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright
monopolies the results of a free market?
The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good
piece on the devastation to millions of working class people
and their communities from the flood of imports of
manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to
hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part
of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part
of a free trade.
First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of
the decision of China and other developing countries to buy
massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this
period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our
goods and services less competitive internationally. This
problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the
bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury
Department and the I.M.F.
If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't
botch the workings of the international financial system,
then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more
imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the
U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive
loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.
The second point is political leaders are constantly
working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer.
This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for
everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower
real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the
beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth
since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a
10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000
percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other
words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say
about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except
the impact is far larger in the later case.)
Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing
workers to international competition, but not doctors and
lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development.
There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and
ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the
United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have
not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far
more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we
rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and
lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and
economists.
Addendum:
Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the
East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite
simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely
following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West
to finance development. This meant running large trade
deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the
conventional view in the developing world was that you needed
massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation
of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help
from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing
countries, especially those in the region, began running very
large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United
States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East
Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)
"... By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, then, the aggressive, unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were unquestionably war crimes. A just government would have put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and so forth on trial. One might note that the Nuremberg trials, the crime was taken seriously enough to earn condemnation to death by hanging. ..."
Howard Frant 09.29.16 at
4:21 am @ 130:
'… She is somewhat
interventionist
militarily. Of course,
people aren't content
just to say that, they
have to say that she is a
"war criminal" (sorry,
could I have some
specifics on this?)….'
I was giving this a rest,
but since you ask, it is
my duty to comply with
your request.
First, we need to
determine what a war
criminal is. I go by the
standards of the
Nuremberg War Crimes
Trials, in whose
charter
we read
(Article 6):
The following acts,
or any of them, are
crimes coming within
the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal for which
there shall be
individual
responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST
PEACE: namely,
planning, preparation,
initiation or waging
of a war of
aggression, or a war
in violation of
international
treaties, agreements
or assurances, or
participation in a
common plan or
conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any
of the foregoing….
I think this is a
pretty good definition of
a war crime, although if
you disagree I will be
glad to argue in its
favor.
By the standards
of the Nuremberg trials,
then, the aggressive,
unjustified invasion and
occupation of Iraq in
2003 were unquestionably
war crimes. A just
government would have put
Bush, Cheney, Rice,
Powell, and so forth on
trial. One might note
that the Nuremberg
trials, the crime was
taken seriously enough to
earn condemnation to
death by hanging.
Clinton's connection
to this crime was, of
course, at least her vote
in 2002 to enable it,
which made her an
accomplice. Her
subsequent excuse was
'bad intelligence', but
given her position as a
US senator, her
connections, her powers,
her fame, and her
undoubted wits, it is
almost impossible to
believe that she believed
Bush's pack of lies. It
seems much more likely
that her calculus was as
follows: 'If the war goes
"badly", it'll be on
Bush. If it goes "well",
we Democrats will have
been in on it. Win-win.'
However, one must concede
that if she were brought
to trial, she might be
able to plead monumental
ignorance and
incompetence. Of course
there will be no such
trial, so everyone
confronted by the
question must answer it
for her- or himself with
whatever means may be at
hand. To me the evidence
seems pretty conclusive.
Layman 09.30.16 at 1:20 pm @ 197 -
If the war was a criminal act, then voting
for the war, by making the voter an
accomplice, was also a criminal act.
Believable
ignorance, incompetence, or
other personal defects might mitigate, but
would not exonerate.
I asked about 'going
on with this' because at least one
participant seemed to feel that the
cataloguing of Clinton's flaws had become
superfluous. Some people might regard war
criminality as a flaw, so perhaps we are
offending as we persist.
Layman
09.30.16 at 2:54 pm
Anarcissie: "If the war was a criminal act, then voting for
the war, by making the voter an accomplice, was also a
criminal act."
Look, I personally believe it was wrong to
vote for the authorization, and that it was a political
calculation, but I wonder if you've actually read the
resolution? It is consistent with the claim that some people
make, that they assumed that Bush would act in concert with
the UN, because the resolution says he would act in concert
with themUN. The resolution was passed in October, the Bush
admin went to the UN in November, but failed to get a clear
authorization from the UN for the war.
You brought up Nuremberg. How many people were prosecuted
at Nuremberg for the crime of having voted for the Enabling
Law of 1933, which granted dictatorial powers and led
directly to everything that followed. None, right? Doesn't
that undermine your case?
Layman 09.30.16 at 2:38 am @ 169:
'"Because a proper trial can't be held, people must make up their minds
individually."
Which is another way of saying that it is not a fact, and that you acknowledge
it isn't a fact, and that rather undermines your entire response.'
I
think you are mistaken. If you believe in any sort of objective universe, then
there are facts which are hidden - in fact, given our lack of omniscience, most
of them. Nevertheless we must proceed in the world in some way, so we - some of
us, anyway - try to establish an idea of the facts through the best evidence
available, rational procedures, intuition, and so on. Some people believe that
the question of whether Clinton is a war criminal is important. There is a
reasonable argument in favor of the proposition, which Howard Frant wanted to
know, or pretended to want to know. I have given it.
Do you really want to go on with this? It does not make your favored
candidate look good, and in any case, most of the people reading and writing
here evidently don't really care that much one way or the other.
Hillary supporters, or "the media," had reason to be happy: She looked healthy! She probably could
have kept reciting her snarky little talking points for another hour.
In fact, it was the best I've ever seen Hillary. She avoided that honking thing she does, smiled
a lot - a little too much, actually (maybe ease up on the pep pills next time) - and, as the entire
media has gleefully reported, she managed to "bait" Trump.
... ... ...
Hillary - with assists from the moderator - "baited" Trump on how rich he is, the loan from his
father, a lawsuit in 1972, the birther claims, who he said what to about the Iraq War from 2001 to
2003, and so on.
... ... ...
For the media, their gal was winning whenever precious minutes of a 90-minute debate were
spent rehashing allegations about Trump. Ha ha! We prevented Trump from talking about issues
that matter to the American people! That was scored as a "win."
... in foreign
policy, the modern American president has become a virtual
monarch. He or she can launch military actions without
congressional approval (just ask Presidents Clinton and
Obama), reach agreements with foreign nations, and establish
or rescind diplomatic relations. The Constitution is supposed
to check the power of the president to declare war or to
enter treaties, but presidents have been shedding those
restraints for generations. The president holds the power of
war and peace in his or her hands, and the entire world -
including our enemies - pays attention to the president's
every word and deed.
If you're a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump
is a delight. He's America's leading Putin apologist, wasting
several agonizing turns in the debate defending Russia from
the charge of meddling in U.S. elections and bizarrely
wondering if a "400-pound" man "sitting on their bed" hacked
Democratic National Committee e-mails. He said he hasn't
"given lots of thought to NATO" and then went ahead and
proved the truth of that statement by fundamentally
misunderstanding the alliance. He treats it as a glorified
protection racket whereby NATO countries allegedly pay us to
defend Europe and they're not paying what they owe. He even
doubled down on his claim - an incredibly bizarre claim given
Russia's military resurgence - that NATO "could be obsolete."
...
Reply
Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 06:49 AM
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
,
Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 07:05 AM
I agree Gary Johnson is not ready to be commander in chief
but he is far more ready than Trump. A low bar.
likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs...
, -1
Why you are reproducing neocon garbage in this blog ?
"He's America's leading Putin apologist"
That's pretty idiotic statement, even taking into account
the abhorrent level of Russophobia of the US elite for whom
Russophobia by-and-large replaced anti-Semitism. .
Anybody who blabber such things (and that includes Ms.
Goldman Sachs) should not be allowed to approach closer then
10 miles to Washington, DC, to say nothing about holding any
elected government position.
"... HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. ..."
"... I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate. ..."
"... The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen. ..."
"... To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears. ..."
A last point about the debate. They are very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much
more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions
take place about what can or cannot be mentioned. (I presume as that is the case in other countries
besides the US.) Trump tweeted he 'held back' because he did not want to embarass HRC, but imho
he was muzzled in part by the ''deals' as the show itself illustrated, softball to HRC and interrupting
DT etc. Imho HRC was given the questions beforehand, DT not (but who knows?) and basically everything
was organised beforehand to put him at a disadvantage.
HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can 'win' by using these kinds
of blatant domineering tactics. The point has been made by many: all these standard coercitive
controlling moves can now backfire badly, they only serve to show up that the Establishment creeps
use illegit. actions, and in any case Trump supporters won't be moved an inch, he could give out
a recipe for Texas BBQ (as one pol I saw did but for rabbit, see previous posts), or flat out
ask the moderator, well IDK, what do you think? and that would be peachy..
Trump followed the no. 1 rule (campaign for myself not against the other), as he was surely
advised to do. Various excuses, rationalisations are put forward for it: he wanted to appeal to
the conventional Repub base, appear as a legit candidate to ppl who had never seen him 'live'
before, he is holding back for the next debates, etc. Still, his performance was not tops, in
the sense of a maverick breaking the mold, he fell down, was a disapointment. He was shown up
to be low man on the pole, constrained by negotiations which he could not dominate, rules which
he could not transgress. Of course many DT supporters and possible new ones perceived the manipulations
quite clearly, and were thus on his side, so a mixed bag. (It's all optics so i wrote nothing
about the real issues.)
I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter
was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product
they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the
bulk of the debate.
The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating
control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only
meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all,
knows what will happen.
While inside the debate moderator Lester Holt failed to ask questions about joblessness, medical
care, student loans, police murder or mass incarceration, New York police outside the debate
showed the world how to suppress free speech with a soft hand, diverting more than two thousand
protesters into "free speech zones" long lines and checkpoints and spaces artfully designed
to prevent groups from concentrating in one place or finding each other.
If the Green Party's Jill Stein had been allowed in this week's presidential debate, it would
have transformed the discussion and altered the race. That's why Democrats and Republicans
kept it a duopoly-only affair. "The only circumstances in which either Trump or Clinton can
muster a minimally compelling argument, is against each other."
To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election,
especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation
of their worst fears.
The Powers That Are can't do anything right any longer. Everything they do is
wrong, and is immediately apparent as wrong, on the big screen and booming through the big megaphone.
They'd do better just to lay off but, like all the extras brought on to push Xmas after Thanksgiving,
there are just too many of them wound-up and let loose, stepping and slipping from one pile of
dog-doo to another, as they tear down the streets of NYC and Hollywood.
I think there's a very good chance that this is the year the extravaganza implodes.
"... Both were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time. ..."
"... Hillary's response was that Donald had used bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations. Whereas Donald relies on mostly modest donations. ..."
After Hillary's coughing spells, after her wobbly display at the Sept. 11 ceremony in New York
City (she almost fell face forward on the running board of her van), after her admission to pneumonia
and all the rumors that admission gave rise to, you had expected something highly dramatic. Perhaps
the cough would return. Perhaps she might pass out under
Donald Trump 's
relentless barbs, possibly to be wheeled out on a gurney. Or perhaps you thought
Donald might explode
or go into a wild rant. Well, it did not happen. Both debaters pretty much played to form. Both
were highly disciplined, one being a billionaire who has made it mostly on his own and the other
having survived in public life for at least 45 years with no jail time.
... Donald had
things under control. As he has done for weeks he was talking directly to the American public through
the awkward stage prop of Hillary. He would start up the economy from its measly growth rate of barely
2 percent. He would get Americans working again. He would tear up trade agreements that favor crony
capitalists and foreign governments. He would prevent companies from leaving America unscathed. Hillary
had been a part of this system for decades. She was a standpatter and defender of the status quo.
She had revealed bad judgment.
Hillary's response was that
Donald had used
bad language in public, lacked the proper "temperament" to be president, and favored the rich whom
she would hit with higher taxes to pay for her giveaways. That last line about the rich is a bit
much given the fact that Hillary is the creature of Wall Street, Hollywood, and large donations.
Whereas Donald
relies on mostly modest donations. Oh, yes, and her needling him on his "temperament" - who
was the last presidential candidate to be attacked for his temperament? Does the name Ronald Reagan
come to mind?
... ... ...
Perhaps Hillary did not notice it because
Donald talks like
an ordinary American rather than a standard-issue politician, but he was talking to America and she
was talking to official Washington. Official Washington claimed he "missed opportunities." He could
have done more with the Wall, Obamacare in free-fall, immigration and immigrant criminals, terrorism
and Benghazi. He should have done more with her errant emails, the Clinton Foundation, her mishandling
of classified documents. He could have cited her lies to Congress, the FBI and how FBI Director James
Comey has contradicted her on her lies.
"... He said he wasn't aware one of Mrs. Clinton 's tech staffers called the deletion of her emails a "coverup operation," but said none of the other information made public about grants of immunity or efforts to delete the messages has changed his mind. ..."
"... Mr. Comey also said he couldn't remember another instance where the subject of an investigation - Mrs. Clinton 's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, sat in on the FBI 's interview with another subject, in this case Mrs. Clinton . ..."
He said he wasn't aware one of
Mrs. Clinton
's tech staffers called the deletion of her emails a "coverup operation," but said none of the other
information made public about grants of immunity or efforts to delete the messages has changed his
mind.
Mr. Comey also
said he couldn't remember another instance where the subject of an investigation -
Mrs. Clinton
's former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, sat in on the
FBI 's interview with another subject, in this case
Mrs. Clinton
.
"... The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result ..."
"... Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says. ..."
"... Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran. ..."
"... So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of. ..."
...The colluding media-commercial-complex getting properly rogered by one of
the monsters it gave birth to. Poetic really.
The neoliberalist denial
that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could
well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result
.
The main emotion of any sane and well-informed leftist is disgust after watching 45
minutes of the debatoid, and that's how I felt.
Horserace Talk:
Demian's point at 49 is excellent: "But Trump did not come across as beyond the pale
in this debate. Thus, he took away the narrative that the public needs to believe in
order not to do what it would usually do – vote out the incumbent party when it is
unhappy with the status quo."
Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard
'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not
'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On
the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada
yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times.
'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says.
Who's Scarier: This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to
the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the
difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of
Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran.
So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied,
we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be
a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and
would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big
deal of.
But hey, his 'cut the taxes for the rich' insanity is a pretty horrible deform from
an already horrible status quo. Anyway, vote for Jill as a protest is my half-hearted
advice. It's depressing and disgusting and we are helplessly watching it roll on.
/div>
nothing will change | Sep 28, 2016 1:27:22 AM |
83
The Hell Bitch was nothing more than an edition of the Enquirer, bringing up long ago
attacks on Trump, that have absolutely nothing to do with policy or Americas future.
And her face was just too made up,with her false eyelashes fluttering behind a wall of
pancake makeup,her eyes glittering with some demonic presence,as she lashed out like a
furriner extolling all immigrants,weirdos and fat foreign beauty queens and not
appealing one iota to US deplorables.
And yeah,both genuflected to Israel,but is there a more powerful influential force in
America than the dual citizen traitors?A sad and terrible fact,but they own every media
outlet,witnessed by the fact there is not one MSM outlet pro Trump,a never before
scenario in our history.
And of course world leaders don't like Trump,as he will cut off the spigots and make
them pay for their own defense,instead of US.
But only those prejudiced rufus and America haters fail to note that.
Forgive me if this is a repeat, but it wouldn't hurt if so, since so rarely does a third
candidate get mentioned. Amy Goodman did the American public a great service by
publishing the transcript of the debate, with Jill Stein's answers (had she been
permitted to attend) within the transcript - you really, really all should read this:
So Hitlary is apparently alive and not in jail contrary to previous rumors.
Lame-scream media announced her win in the debate as 1-0 - does it mean the
establishment is not behind Trump, who received some strange endorsements recently from
former enemies like Ted Cruz?
What I consider interesting is that being that far in the game still any options seem
to be opened:
1) Killary wins (trough rigged votes or claim of Russian hacking in favor of Trump)
2) Trump wins
3) Congress appoints the president because of tie in the electoral votes
4) Obama continues his presidency because of some "emergency": "Russian hackers"
attacking the election systems, false flag massacre in the US, ME, Ukraine, "natural"
disaster (is the constitution still suspended after 9/11 and COG in play? NDAA?)
5) Bernie Sanders joins the race as an independent because of new grave evidence
against Hitlary
6) Hitlary withdraws "because of her sudden health problems" - Demockrats appoint
Biden, Pence, Michelle Obama, ...?
7) Military organizes a coup against Obama
8) Security apparatus organizes a coup against Hitlary after her election
9) Deep state organizes a coup against Trump after his election (remember "business
plot" against FDR headed by Prescott Bush and defused by general Butler?)
10) Third party wins because Trump and Clinton become unelectable
Anyway many signals indicate that we are to see an "October Surprise" for sure.
It seems that the plan is the keep people guessing until the very end.
Trump did great for a guy who has never run for political office before – and didn't
cram for the debate. Hillary has debated at the presidential level so many times she
could probably do it half of it in her sleep. If I go into the ring with heavyweight
boxing champion Tyson Fury and manage to survive a round with all but one of my
teeth, it's fair to say that I won. …
Maybe the herd is right. Maybe it's a simple matter of she did better, he did
worse. But I keep thinking, debates are graded on a curve. She was supposed to kick
his ass. Yet there he is, dead even in the polls with her.
Well, "We The People" still have some time before the election to get the
psycho-ops weapons we do not have – mental masturbators on behalf of our
"populist" issues…
From Robert Reich:
THE NEW COMMON GROUND BETWEEN POPULIST LEFT AND RIGHT
The old debate goes something like this:
'You don't believe women have reproductive rights."
"You don't value human life."
Or this:
"You think everyone should own a gun."
"You think we're safer if only criminals have them."
Or this:
"You don't care about poor people."
"You think they're better off with handouts."
Or this:
"You want to cut taxes on the rich."
"You want to tax everyone to death."
But we're seeing the emergence of a new debate where the populist left
and right are on the same side:
Both are against the rich to spend as much as they want corrupting our
democracy.
Both are against crony capitalism.
Both are against corporate welfare.
Both are against another Wall Street bailout.
Both want to stop subsidizing Big Agriculture, Big Oil, and the
pharmaceutical industry.
Both want to close the tax loophole for hedge fund partners.
Both want to ban inside trading on Wall Street.
Both want to stop CEOs from pumping up share prices with stock buy-backs
… and then cashing in their stock options.
Both want to stop tax deductions of CEO pay over $1 million.
Both want to get big money out of politics, reverse Citizens United, and
restore our democracy,
If we join together, we can make these things happen.
Lots of words in your response, but I don't see where you
identified the model candidate who meets your high standards. You just told
us that HRC doesn't, which we already knew. Does no one meet your standards,
or is there a reason you won't say who?
Re "lesser of two evils"–if you don't like Trump or HRC, the election
boils down to three choices:
– you vote for the greater evil
– you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively
a half vote for the greater evil
– you vote for the lesser evil
Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil.
–
skunk
|
August 28, 2016 at 10:24 am
|
Pub, I don't think she has eight years left in her, she's about to croak on
stage, limiting her ability to forget what happened yesterday so she or
(another democrat) can carry the democratic mantra tomorrow. She has passed
out, fallen, tripped like a Ford just not going down hill yet, had her
intestines ripped out because of bad behavior, and this is just in public.
Imagine how many blunders have occurred with her in private. She is a
disaster just waiting to happen, a Nixon at a Kennedy debate. She hasn't
held a press conference in almost 3/4 of a year, is trying to ride to the
rescue of her own created problems under the guise of the Clinton
foundation. 8 years, I want to see her survive the next eight weeks.
Plus there is nothing left to choose from except 100% pure unadulterated,
political evil.
Now, who's your ideal politician? We'll loosen the requirements. You can
choose from life or literature. :-)
skunk
|
August 28, 2016 at 11:56 am
|
I don't think so, I know her and Bill too well. She even got mad when I was
going to send somebody over there to have Bill take the drug test. Like we
really need politicians who are beholden to their drug dealers.
As for ideal politician, I can't say we have ever had one beyond the
founders, and life so is different today that the comparison is moot.
Buddy Haley was on the right track, but since the wrong track is the
majority it just goes to show how doomed politics really is.
This country
got outsmarted by the Germans and had to retaliate by out gunning them and
never recognizing their grievances. Now that the tables have turned and we
are the guilty ones, we turn to denial and war as the end of all solutions.
Their is no political solution, hence the beating of the dead horse as it
gets pitch black outside. And it's hard to fight the reaper coming up behind
you with his surprise execution when you can no longer see where you are
going.
skunk
|
August 28, 2016 at 1:23 pm
|
Haven't looked into it that closely. I first thought that the three 2 term
succession administrations since the founding of the country was the greater
consideration of the end of all, now that i've been proved wrong, I aint so
sure what's goin on next.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 28, 2016 at 6:26 pm
|
Pub,
So, if only 25% of the eligible voters participate, as opposed to the usual
40something%, you believe that the additional non-voters are saying little
or nothing?
"Not choosing is essentially half-ass choosing the greater evil".
But
doesn't choosing the lesser of two evils simply perpetuate evil? Saying
something like "yea, we know this is not really a democracy, the political
parties do of course decide who we vote for, but ah shucks, it is fun to
pretend, and yea, the system is obviously corrupt but my candidate promises
that he/she will change that. And just because he/she takes money from bad
people doesn't mean he/she'll do just like every other politician has done,
always, my candidate will be different. To heck with Einstein's theory of
insanity."
So is it not conceivable that the lessor of two evil votes "is
essentially half-ass choosing" to be duped over and over again? While a
non-vote might say enough is enough?
Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in
regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following
being a solid example of that conditioning:
"three choices:
– you vote for the greater evil
– you vote for someone who can't win, or you stay home, which is effectively
a half vote for the greater evil
– you vote for the lesser evil"
But what if nobody voted other than a small number of political zombies,
and of course the establishment?
"Anyway, you seem to represent living proof that the conditioning in
regards to what a non-vote truly means is working quite well. The following
being a solid example of that conditioning"
You know how self-righteous and condescending this is, right? And from
what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to support you're
opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than possibly
insecurity.
If you can't name a single political leader from anywhere in time or
space that meets your standards of righteousness, that says a lot. And I
suspect I know what it says. You don't want to show your true colors, or you
feel you can't back up your choice.
Which is it?
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 28, 2016 at 8:44 pm
|
Wow, pub, you are even more of a zombie than I thought. I write ten times as
many words on this board as you do, teeming with contentions that you could
challenge, but you ignore nearly all of those opportunities to defend your
champion of less evil only to keep coming back with some lame nonsense about
who I might support.
And by "condescending" do you mean like this:"Lots of words in your
response, but I don't see where you identified the model candidate who meets
your high standards".
But of course telling me what we 'should' be talking about after suggesting
that my "words" are not worthy of any effort on your part, is not just
condescending but rudely so and evasive. As if the topic here is what you
say it is, not HRC's questionable behavior, but instead this all important
quest of yours to discover my "single political leader from anywhere in time
or space". As if such folly matters in the actual time and space that we can
do something about.
And questioning my "true colors" as if suggest that I'm trolling or
whatever. Should I now expect the name-calling and context tweaking to
follow? Or must the moaning and chanting simply go on until election day.
who is your dreammm can-di-da-te?", lessor of two evils, do you have an
ideal can-di-date? you only have 3 choices, ya 'know. lessor of two evils.
lessor of two evils. All leaders have flaws. not voting as I do is half-ass.
wanna talk about the best candidate taken from all of history. lessor of two
evils. don't be half-ass. lessor of two evils. I like standing in line, do
you?
But then too there is the big tell of big tells:
"And from what I've seen of your logic and the evidence you muster to
support you're opinion, I see little reason for such arrogance other than
possibly insecurity".
Do have any notion of how hypocritical and low-integrity it is to not
provide 'any' support for such a claim? What logic! What evidence! What
reason do you 'actually' see? Where be the 'why'? Did you flunk English all
through school?
I've written enough on this board that even the laziest blogger at the
worst site could of found at least some sort of an example, or shred of
evidence, to back up at least something. Crap like your comment just says
"hey look, I don't know the first rule of sound analysis, or good writing in
general, but I've analyzed you using low standards and I don't like you
because you don't agree with me and that makes you insecure". Wow again.
BRUCE E. WOYCH
|
August 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm
|
Closer to Homebase: "WHO CARES?"
Department of Homeland Security Has Surprise for Bernie Supporters at DNC
Lawsuit Hearing
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: August 29, 2016
There are political issues not being covered by mainstream media
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/08/department-of-homeland-security-has-surprise-for-bernie-supporters-at-dnc-lawsuit-hearing/
…that
have more to do with election questions concerning the DNC and its efforts
to evade accountability for its conduct, along with certain too close for
comfort insider support to keep things confused:
(QUOTED)
The lawsuit against the DNC is Wilding et al v DNC Services Corporation and
Deborah 'Debbie' Wasserman Schultz. The case is being heard in the Federal
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Case Number
16-cv-61511-WJZ.) The Sanders supporters are being represented in the
lawsuit by the following law firms: Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers of Miami;
Cullin O'Brien Law, P.A. of Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and Antonino G.
Hernandez P.A. of Miami.
(QUOTED):
"the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has been filed
by Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters against the Democratic National
Committee and its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The lawsuit, which
currently has more than 100 plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings
with retainer agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duty, and negligence."
MAINSTREAM MEDIA FAILED TO COVER IT.
Regardless of the voting; the exposure of corrupting political practice must
be considered equal to the election voting itself.
thoughtful person
|
August 29, 2016 at 9:27 pm
|
"Some progressives seem to prefer purity over progress. This puts a
millstone around the necks of pragmatic progressives, like HRC, who are
warriors and make the compromises necessary to gain and then exercise power
for progressive ends"
Bob Snodgrass
|
September 1, 2016 at 1:19 pm
|
Wow, I found your article OK although too much in the all pure or all evil
genre. We can't deal with this kind of problem in isolation from the rest of
our culture and government, any more than we can impose a nationally funded
Medicare for all without changing our NASCAR, celebrity/millionaire
worshipping, racialist- tribalist (not the same as racist which has lost
most of its meaning, closer to Barry Goldwater's viewpoint) controlling
central core. That's a tall order, not even Bernie has the answer although
reducing financialization & imposing a security transaction tax would be a
start. If we somehow snuck in Medicare for all or an improved and expanded
Obamacare, the controlling central core which includes the Koch brothers,
would ensure that it failed because of their stranglehold on Washington and
federal + state budgets.
Turing to the comments, there are many that make
me cringe. This is a harmful side of the Internet, reading comments makes me
feel that Armageddon is nigh. It is not in reality.
"... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
"... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
"... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates
to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has
given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and
manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the
US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that
any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different
manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere
except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in
Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the
Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important
here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits
recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use
intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.
Does this imply that Apple would
pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found
it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish
tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of
Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal
location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office
got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish
branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits
of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest
was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple
paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate
profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's
"state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away
from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.
In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated
as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to
be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known
that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence
is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent
establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special
deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit
groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated
profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's
Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international
cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate
taxation in America."
This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision
not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues
as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised
the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax
base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the
French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of
Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than
in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.
... ... ...
Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from
the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic
conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters
reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50
biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax.
So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not
lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.
I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big
companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.
From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status
was an exercise in political arbitrage.
" Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and
from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions
"
Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
> "Since The Arizona Republic began publication in
1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican
for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical
appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican
principles"
I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much
reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party)
principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak.
"... I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar principle, even if disagreeing on the content. ..."
"... I actually find it easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment. ..."
"... In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist appeal despite years of petty demagoguery. ..."
"... I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time. ..."
"... Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of government policy. ..."
"... Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy disaster. ..."
"... She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an exercise. ..."
"... Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush. ..."
"... aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much carried the neocons water. ..."
"... in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for the war. ..."
"... She may well believe that, but if so it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama. ..."
"... No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes. ..."
"... Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get "bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS. ..."
"... And it won't impede her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota. ..."
"... The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others' believe the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over, cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past. ..."
"... We begin from the assumption that Clinton is standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as evidence of that. ..."
"... the Democratic Party was once the party of the working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since. ..."
"... In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning, and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the world. ..."
"... A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing! ..."
Against a background anxiety surrounding a
sense that things are not working. The old ideologies are not working, every
thing has to change and we hate much of the change we do see creeping up. The
conservative party serves up a wrecking ball. The reform party serves up the
status quo warmed over. ("Intelligent surge") We fear change. We fear the
continuation of the status quo and the degeneration the status quo promises to
continue.
Yan
09.27.16 at 5:46 pm
"On the other hand, there's a not so small current in American politics that
would hear that, that Trump didn't pay his taxes, and think, with him, that he
was indeed smart for having outsmarted the system. …This is a nation of conmen
(and women)…"
I think this is right but misleading, since the voters who
probably liked that comment don't see themselves as conmen out for a quick
buck, but as victims gaming a rigged system. They think taxes are an injustice,
and that they're John Dillinger fighting for their rightful earnings against
the thieving IRS.
This is generally important for understanding Trump voters: for all their
quirks, at bottom they are, like most Americans, very strongly motivated by a
skewed notion of fairness: they think others are cutting in line, getting a
handout, getting special rights and favors.
I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even
when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of
fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar
principle, even if disagreeing on the content.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 6:20 pm
Watching British Labour Party politics from afar is like seeing Democratic
Party politics in a fun house mirror. One thing that is writ in primary colors
and big block letters in the Labour Party struggle is the tension between the
new class and everyone else seeking protection from the globalizing plutocracy
and whose only ideological models are anachronisms.
I actually find it
easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope
in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes
and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a
standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between
the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on
that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment.
In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy
stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the
Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats
even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist
appeal despite years of petty demagoguery.
I think Trumps policies frequently look like a generic Republicans because he
didn't enter this election as a serious candidate, and now that he's the actual
nominee he's been scrambling to come up with any policies at all. So he's
copying from the party that nominated him.
His campaign has always been very ad hoc. Look at his "make Mexico pay for
the wall" thing. He clearly just threw that out there as bluster, then when it
went viral cobbled together a pseudo plan to make it sound plausible.
His line on taxes was perfect, unfortunately. On taxes, for a lot of people
the question is whether he behaved legally. If you can legally not pay taxes
but you do anyway, you're a chump. Can anyone who does their own taxes honestly
say that they've chosen to NOT take an exemption or deduction for which they
were qualified? I can't.
The people who feel this way may wish it wasn't legal for Trump to do this.
But as far as condemning him for it assuming it WAS legal… maybe they can drum
up some generic resentment of the rich, or tell themselves that he probably
broke the law somewhere, somehow, but that's about it. They're not going to
adopt a principled belief that he should pay taxes he doesn't have to pay. And
if Democrats push on this there's no shortage of "rich democrat does lawful but
resentment inducing rich-guy thing" stories that can be used as a smokescreen.
Now… are Trumps taxes actually on the level? Probably not. I suppose the IRS
will tell us eventually, after the election. It's not like Trump will release
them in the meantime.
Other than that Hillary Clinton won but it won't matter because
conservatives live in a creepy little bubble where HRC is a shadowy murderess
who assassinates her rivals and must be kept from the throne at all costs.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 6:28 pm
I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican
politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to
consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time.
Just recently he
said he'd allow over the counter contraception. He tried to Savage war hero
John McCain because he'd been captured. He hasn't just thrown away the dog
whistle, he is willing to jetison any part of the ideology he finds
inconvenient.
Watson Ladd
09.27.16 at 6:51 pm
Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he
on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think
the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the
candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past
candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of
government policy.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 7:06 pm
Omega Centauri @ 21
Listening to Trump has a way of casting his audience into
the same position as the dogs in a Gary Larson
Far Side
cartoon, where
the dogs only hear a few words they are hungry to hear.
Clinton's patter seems more conventionally structured, but its highlights
are righteous self-regard, well past its sell-by date.
There is no coherence (beyond class interest) to Trump. He is a socially
isolated Billionaire who is lazy, inattentive, arrogant . . . but put him in
front of an audience and he will talk randomly until he finds a laugh or
applause.
Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies
of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also
makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy
disaster.
She will win the election, but after that . . . things are unlikely to go
well.
People make the observation that both have high negatives. But, beneath
those high negatives, each has pursued coalition-building strategies almost
guaranteed to narrow their respective bases of support below a majority
threshold.
Why isn't Clinton saying "Trump is a more reckless, less coherent George W.
Bush"
She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the
left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an
exercise.
politicalfootball
09.27.16 at 7:46 pm
I wouldn't read too much into HRCs apparent decision not to tar Trump with
Bush.
That's a charge that simply wouldn't stick. Trump has quite
persuasively separated himself from the Bushes - and vice versa.
Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And
Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own
vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush.
I would be curious for Bruce to explain anything that Hillary has actually
done
to get Bush's vote. Seems to me she continues to run to the left.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 8:33 pm
I'm not Bruce, but
aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much
carried the neocons water.
But, I think its mainly that the Bushes see
Trump as crazy beyond the pale, and Clinton as a somewhat steady hand. Also
in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian
adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for
the war.
JimV
09.27.16 at 8:56 pm
I agree with Bruce Wilder than HRC doesn't want to offend Republicans
unnecessarily. He seems to see it as a character flaw, and maybe it is, but it
could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a lot
of bitter Republican enemies. And I think it is the polite way to behave even
with those with whom you disagree, but I won't lobby for that motive here.
If
Trump avoided taxes legally and that is a smart, enviable thing to do, why
doesn't he release his tax information to show how smart he was? Why is he
really hiding the information? Inquiring campaign adds will want to know, if
people can't figure that out for themselves.
Ideology: I like the ideology that climate science is not a hoax, that
universal health insurance is a good thing with more work needed on it, and
some other parts of HRC's agenda that do not seem to be the current ideology
(in power).
"Smart surge": that was another palpable hit by Bruce Wilder (along with
"no-fly zone in Syria"). Ouch. (I'm not being sarcastic, if it is difficult to
tell.) I'm going to write her a letter opposing that. She's sent me a couple
letters, so I should have her return address. I think I haven't recycled the
last one yet.
Layman
09.27.16 at 9:25 pm
"…it could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a
lot of bitter Republican enemies."
She may well believe that, but if so
it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will
treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama.
There's no obvious
incentive for them to do anything else, and the base think she's a murderer and
traitor.
No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a
primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes.
marku52
09.27.16 at 9:46 pm
Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since
her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub
House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been
to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she
threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get
"bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS.
And it won't impede
her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota.
A Trump presidency would be hated by all parties to the duo-gopoly, and
would be stymied at everything.
The point about not paying tax is on point, I think. I wrote something yonks
ago about Berlusconi and 'patrimonial populism' – the idea being that
Berlusconi was seen as both the figurehead of the nihilistic "screw politics"
crowd and a national sugar daddy, dishing out favours from the national budget
in just the same way that he lobbed sweeteners to business partners. One
Italian commentator spotted a graffito that called on Berlusconi to abolish
speed limits – "Silvio, let us speed on the autostrada!" Because you knew
he
would, and if you voted for him, hey, maybe he'd let you do it too.
(Berlusconi hasn't been in government for a while, but he was Prime Minister
for ten years in total between 1994 and 2011. He's still involved in three
court cases relating to corruption and fraud, and has been found guilty in
another; he served a sentence of house arrest and community service. He will be
80 on Thursday.)
kidneystones
09.27.16 at 10:05 pm
The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT
community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share
HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound
reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others'
believe the opposite.
derrida derider
09.27.16 at 11:17 pm
The best way to assess how a national TV debate went is to watch the whole
thing with the sound turned off. Swing voters are almost by definition the
least interested watchers who will just not care about coherence, patter,
policy, ideology, etc because they don't just don't care about politics much.
Subconscious impressions, mainly set by body language with perhaps the odd
striking expression, are what persuades or dissuades them.
ZM 09.27.16 at 11:24 pm @ 45:
'This is a paper by Paul Gilding on a war time mobilisation response,
although he isn't connected to the Democrats I don't think: WAR. What Is It
Good For? WWII Economic Mobilisation An Analogy For Climate Action
http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_1bfd229f6638410f8fcf230e12b1e285.pdf
'
I criticized the war metaphor before, mostly on literary or stylistic grounds,
but having seen this publication, I feel it is necessary to offer as well a
practical consideration, out of character as that may be. War metaphors and
models appeal to many people because a good-sized war, especially in our era,
appears as an existential crisis, and in properly organized wartime all
dissidence and discussion are swept away by the power of necessity, harnessed
by great leaders and experts. It is a paradise of authority.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:25 am
@ 52 "My main takeaway from the debate is that it finally refuted any notion
that Trump has any idea what he's doing."
What markers did Trump provide that are significantly different from any of
the ravings that propelled him past a stable of extremely well-funded and
politically-skilled GOP politicians?
The fact that a rodeo clown like Trump is even on the same stage as HRC
suggests that whatever his perceived defects here, Trump commands the
attention, affection, and respect of almost as many Americans, perhaps more,
than the candidate of Goldman-Sachs.
Trump is not going to 'win' any of the debates. Trump is marketing the Trump
brand on the biggest stage possible. What actually takes place on stage is
negligible in a world where superficiality is much more important than
substance.
What will happen is that Trump is going to remind the audience that Hillary
does indeed sound very clever and well-grounded. Then, he'll catalogue the
questions: 'How can HRC credibly claim not to know what the initial 'C' means
on a classified document?' etc.
The most recent good poll I saw on HRC identified the voters' principal
concerns with HRC: Syria, Libya, emails – in short, her judgment and her
honesty.
Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over,
cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to
convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past.
As others have noted, the Dukakis title doesn't make any sense to me at all.
She's done.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:30 am
And then there's the health issue (the one that can't be wished away).
The Arizona Republic, Arizona's biggest newspaper (Phoenix), just endorsed
Clinton for President, the first time it has endorsed a Democrat in its
126-year history.
Glen Tomkins
09.28.16 at 1:56 pm
Rich,
"…that no one is really pushing these propaganda lines on people."
That's the very thing, isn't it? That's what US politics has gotten too.
There is a very conventional approach to a national campaign that dictates that
you do messaging, which means that you carefully avoid saying anything with any
public policy entailments. Having the candidate say anything of this sort is
especially to be avoided, because that ties the campaign most concretely to
specifics, and specific public policy your side advocates can be fitted into a
different, hostile, theoretical frame by the other side. Yet candidates have to
say things, it's expected. So they have refined a method that avoids
propagandizing for anything in terms more concrete than "Make America Great
Again", or "Stronger Together", both of which are brilliant at hinting at
whatever good thing you might want them to mean, without pushing any actual
policy.
In that silence from the campaigns themselves step all of the sorts of
sophisticated people such as those of us in the CT commentariat. The media rise
no higher on the intellectual food chain than the attempt to fill the silence
with theorizing about campaigns as horse races, who's winning and why. We here
at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in theories about the actual
supposed subject of politics, public policy. But at all levels of this effort,
we theorize because we are of the species Homo theoreticus, and we must have
theories. The more sophisticated we are the more we need them. We fill the
silence by propagandizing on a DIY, freebie basis.
Not that any of this is new. Swift told us all about it in Tale of a Tub,
the oracle of our age. Think of this campaign as a tub bobbing on the waves.
Worry it as you will, and it just moves to the next wave.
Glen Tomkins: "We here at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in
theories about the actual supposed subject of politics, public policy."
Does
not fit the observables. These theories are not about public policy and are not
good on any theoretical level (even if you consider this goodness to be
possible if it is decoupled from fact and is purely a matter of internal
consistency).
Almost all of these "theories" are based on a simple three-step;
1. HRC is the lesser evil.
2. I can't stand voting for someone purely as the lesser evil: my ego
requires that I affirmatively support someone.
3. Therefore the lesser evil is really kind of good and anyone against it is
bad.
As usual, I find a lot of discussion here about worlds totally unlike the one
that I live in.
We begin from the assumption that Clinton is
standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as
evidence of that.
Um… people.. she was Secretary of State. Can we really
think of no reason she might favor an agreement that includes the US and east
Asia, but not China, other than subservience to international capital? Can we
think of no reason a Secretary of State might want to encourage fracking in
Bulgaria other than anticipated future contributions from the oil and gas
industry? (Hint: Russia is monopoly supplier of natural gas to Europe, and not
shy about reminding them of that.)
In this imaginary world,
the Democratic Party was once the party of the
working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they
abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In
actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and
he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since.
In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning,
and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from
Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the
world.
Um.. people… destruction has been raining down on Syria for years
now. There have been 400,000 people killed, and, as you may have noticed, a
whole lot of refugees. The left doesn't seem to be overly concerned about this,
other than bitterly oppose any attempts to use military force to do anything
about it.
A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing!
If Obama
had carried out his threat over the "red line" by striking at the Syrian air
force, it would have saved many, many lives, but that would be imperialism.
Possibly people at CT, even Americans, have gotten used to thinking of
politics in parliamentary terms, in which platforms actually have some
practical effect, and winning means winning a legislative majority. (That's the
only way a Sanders candidacy would have made sense.) As you know, though, the
US doesn't work that way, and so the question is what can get done. If Clinton
is able to actually carry out the things she is talking about – an increase in
the minimum wage, paid family leave, increased infrastructure spending -- it
will make a much bigger difference in people's lives than bringing back
Glass-Steagall would.
likbez
09.28.16
at 4:45 pm
@80
Rich,
This "HRC is the lesser evil" is a very questionable line of thinking that
is not supported by the facts.
How Hillary can be a lesser evil if by any reasonable standard she is a war
criminal. War criminal like absolute zero is an absolute evil. You just can't
go lower.
Trump might be a crook, but he still did not committed any war crimes. Yet.
Calling the people whose endorsements Clinton has spent her time since the DNC
pursuing "moderate Republicans" seems suspect. After all, apart from Wall
Street financier types whose rigid party identification tends to dissolve in
the bipartisan solvent of the neoliberal financial establishment [I shouldn't
say "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" or liberals will throw a tantrum], the
Republican public figures she's been most aggressive about shepherding into her
corner are the neoconservative foreign policy hawks whose coups, death squads,
invasions, and so on were allegedly supposed to embody the worst and most
immoderate
excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.
It seems the idea is to impress so-called moderate
voters
with a show
of establishment unanimity across all prior "extremes" as a show of Clinton's
seriousness and Trump's unseriousness, but then we have to reckon with the way
"moderate voters" is most often a euphemism for "low-information voters with a
vague sense of not wanting to be seen as rocking the boat who otherwise don't
give much of a damn about electoral politics at all", which has little to do
with what "moderate" means when describing actual public figures.
If we took any real effort to directly hash out "moderate"
inclinations of the depoliticized public at large the same way we do those of
the institutions through which this public is supposed to funnel its political
engagement, we'd probably come up with something very different.
Also, Rich @ 106, you're more or less echoing what Nathan Robinson writes
about "objectively pro-Trump" anti-leftist Hillary supporters
here
.
ZM's wartime mobilisation, bob's politics of continual catastrophe, or even
bruce's Two-To-Three-Year Plan will not happen, in part because of
neoliberalism's constant drive toward depoliticization of issues that might
interfere with short-term corporate profits
, and also in part because
First-World politics is well practiced at not giving a shit about the suffering
of the Third World
Which of course is where the most immediately catastrophic suffering from
climate change will be borne at least at first. Lee's "chink in the rightwing
cognitive armor" won't happen either, not in response to any empirical facts
about the actual climate: this cognitive armor exists because there are vested
interests promoting its existence, interests that aren't themselves stupid
enough to completely deny the basic parameters of climate science (
e.g.
).
If anything the least starry-eyed one here is Layman for implying that
neoliberalism would tackle climate change by radically reconfiguring market
incentives to make prevention and/or mitigation a profitable business, which is
close to how people like Charles Koch see the issue too - but in this case I
have to agree with everybody else here that this kind of gentle nudging of
markets wouldn't be enough, without slamming on the brakes much harder than our
current thoroughly marketized mechanisms are capable of doing.
What's needed is impossible under our present institutions, and what's
possible is inadequate.
Will G-R #114: "this cognitive armor exists because there are vested interests
promoting its existence"
I don't think so. I think it emerged when the Great
Chain of Being was overturned in the public imagination in the middle of the
18th Century (see Lovejoy) and so, at the same moment, the market economy began
to be accepted as a way to escape the status positions of traditional society.
The change in emotional expectation about the source of social status
immediately formed a left/right politics, generally reflecting the interests of
the have-nots and the haves. Promotion by vested interests is not a cause of
this, rather it is a predicable symptom of it.
And it won't be overturned by anything less than a reversal in the reign of
the status-psychology of money which has characterized the last 250 years.
Which may be closer than we think, because a part of "status" has always
been since ancient times a signal of being able to avoid need - but it is
unavoidably becoming ever clearer that our basest owners are in the richest
things superfluous.
Perhaps we will soon be ready to read the social tragedy of our next
romantic Shelleyan horror myth: the Trumpenstein monster!
"... As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that are oppressing their citizens by force and violence. ..."
"... Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius. ..."
"... Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a failing grade. ..."
"... Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate. ..."
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton champions wars to effectuate regime change.
Their immorality, illegality and stupidity do not diminish Mrs. Clinton's enthusiasm for treating
independent nations as serfs of the United States.
As first aady, she warmly supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made it the policy of
the Unites States to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. As United States Senator, she
invoked the 1998 policy in voting for the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq.
Saddam's successors proved a cure worse than the disease. Shiite dominated governments allied
with Iran, oppressed Sunnis, Kurds, and Turkmen, and created a power vacuum that gave birth to
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Our national security has been weakened.
As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to
overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She
boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he
died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with
President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that
are oppressing their citizens by force and violence.
Libya predictably descended into dystopia after Gaddafi's murder. (It had no democratic
cultural, historical, or philosophical credentials.) Tribal militias proliferated. Competing
governments emerged. ISIS entered into the power vacuum in Sirte, which has required the return
of United States military forces in Libya. Terrorists murdered our Ambassador and three other
Americans in Benghazi. Gaddafi's conventional weapons were looted and spread throughout the
Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled and are continuing to flee Libyan shores
for Europe. North Korea and Iran hardened their nuclear ambitions to avoid Gaddafi's grisly fate.
Our national security has been weakened.
Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to
initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war
against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could
transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas
Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius.
She forgot South Sudan. We midwifed its independence in 2011. Despite our hopes and prayers,
the new nation descended into a gruesome ongoing civil war including child soldiers between the
Dinka led by President Salva Kiir and the Nuer led by former Vice President Riek Machar. More
than 50,000 have died, more than 2.2 million have been displaced, and a harrowing number have
been murdered, tortured or raped. South Sudan epitomizes our nation-building incompetence.
Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise
foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a
failing grade. As Jesus sermonized in Matthew 7: 1-3:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that
is in thine own eye?"
Thus, Thomas Jefferson wrote to President James Monroe in 1823: "The presumption of dictating to
an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation
as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal
execrations against the other."
Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations
Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in
self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception.
They are also stupid, like playing Russian roulette. We lack the wisdom necessary to insure that
successor regimes will strengthen rather than weaken our national security taking into account,
among other things, the staggering military and financial costs of propping up corrupt,
incompetent, and unpopular governments.
Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something
kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for
fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate.
Domestic-policy successes such as paid family leave count for little if the U.S. is at
war with Russia.
Hillary Clinton has some impressive goals for the United States. And it is
conceivable that, to whatever extent, she can even achieve them. These include
(courtesy of
NPR
):
Make public college debt-free. Fund universal pre-K. Create a comprehensive
background check system and close loopholes. Give the government a role in
setting insurance rates. Waive deportation and give undocumented residents a
path to legal status. Enact an infrastructure plan that also serves as a
stimulus to the economy. Raise capital gains taxes [We will overlook her
coziness with Wall Street for the moment.]
But what does domestic-policy success avail us if the United States is fighting
a major war? It is common knowledge that when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary
Clinton gives many of us on the left the heebie-jeebies. A blurb on the issues
page of her official campaign website suggests traditional Democratic
overcompensation on defense, but to the nth degree: "Military and defense[:] We
should maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military the world
has ever known."
The extent to which Russian President Vladimir Putin considers Ms. Clinton a
nemesis (and Donald Trump a potential ally) can be seen in a new article by
Simon Shuster at
Time
. But, obviously, no American election should be
decided by which candidate the leader of another superpower prefers. The real
issue, without going into detail, is her policy toward Russia, summarized by
Jeffrey Sachs at Huffington Post
.
… she championed a remarkably confrontational approach with Russia based on
NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia and a new nuclear arms race that will
cost American taxpayers more than $355 billion over a decade.
There we have the two weakest links of Hillary Clinton foreign policy bundled
into one. She is likely to increase tensions with Russia, thus putting us at risk
of war with nuclear weapons, the modernization of which she champions.
To put it another way, an aggressive stance toward Russia and more nuclear
weapons would cancel out domestic initiatives and achievements. After all, what
good is paid parental leave if the United States is waging a major war and not
only is there no money left over from defense for such programs, but, the number
of families left standing to benefit from these programs is, shudder, drastically
diminished?
Bottom line: Without a visionary policy that works toward alleviating tensions
with, not confronting or attacking, other countries, domestic policy successes
count for little.
Here it is. 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.
Nor has the Democratic Party candidate for president this year, Hillary Clinton, sought peace. Instead
she has pushed America into successive invasions, successive efforts at "regime change." She has
sought to prevent Americans from seeking friendship or cooperation with President Vladimir Putin
of Russia by characterizing him as "another Hitler." She proclaims herself ready to invade Syria
immediately after taking the oath of office. Her shadow War Cabinet brims with the architects of
war and disaster for the past decades, the neocons who led us to our present pass, in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Ukraine, unrepentant of all past errors, ready to resume it all with fresh
trillions and fresh blood. And the Democrats she leads seem intent on worsening relations with Russia,
for example by sending American warships into the Black Sea, or by introducing nuclear weapons ever
closer to Russia itself.
In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president
has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire
world at once; who sees that America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the
advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and
have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed
out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are
trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.
That candidate is Donald Trump. Throughout this campaign, he has said that as president, he would
quickly sit down with President Putin and seek relaxation of tensions between our nations, and possible
collaboration in the fight against terrorists. On this ground alone, he marks himself as greatly
superior to all his competitors, earlier in the primaries and now in the general election.
Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of
Texas and president of the United States, various people and companies decided
to write him checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they
thought he was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally,
happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas and the
United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush never promised to
do anything in particular for them. You would be suspicious, right?
Now, that's roughly what has been happening with the Clinton Foundation.
Various people and companies have been writing checks for millions of dollars
to the Foundation during the same time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of
state and, following that, the most likely next president of the United
States-a title she has held since the day Barack Obama's second term began.
(The Clintons finally decided to
scale back the Foundation
earlier this week.)
... ... ...
So the real question is this: Do you think it would be appropriate for people and companies
affected by U.S. policy to be writing $1 million checks directly to the Clintons? If the answer
is yes, then you should be against any campaign finance rules whatsoever. If the answer is no,
you should be worried about the Clinton Foundation.
Vinny Idol
|
August 25, 2016 at 8:02 pm
|
I disagree whole heartedly with this post. The clinton foundation is a
big deal, because its proof positive that America was founded on Money
laundering, the elite that run this country make and made their money
through money laundering; and no one wants that in the White House. Thats
ok for the rest of America sociery, but not the government where peoples
lives hang on the balance through every speech, law and policy that is
conducted on capitol hill.
The Clintons destroyed Libya, Honduras, Haiti through their money
laundering scheme called the clinton foundation. Theres no justification
for that.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 12:40 am
|
Trump thinks very highly of Reagan, but very lowly of Mexicans, so if
Trump were to win I suspect he will secretly sell some of our nukes, this
finally giving him the financial boost needed to overtake Carlos Slim on
the list of the world's richest men. This 'deal of deals' then also
harkens back to another historical 'deal' (Iran/Contra), and of course
Reagan, while simultaneously eliminating Trump's deepest regret which is
that of being bested by a Mexican. This being the real reason that he
decided to run in the first place.
Probably though, HRC will win. The
problem there being that all of the scrutiny that she has been receiving
for so long, coupled with Bills' infidelities, and other various setbacks
and slights, have left her very angry and bitter. Combining this seething
hatred of all humans, especially men, with the fact that there has never
been a women president to look up to, HRC's only influence is a secretary
who worked for Woodrow Wilson by the name of Mildred Jingowitz, or Ms.
Jingo as she was called. Ms. Jingo stands out for HRC because she
actually wrote the Espionage Act of 1917 and the the Sedition Act of
1918. Those combining to "cover a broader range of offenses, notably
speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war
effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government
bonds."
"The Sedition Act of 1918 stated that people or countries cannot say
negative things about the government or the war."
"It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed
forces or that caused others to view the American government or its
institutions with contempt." Most importantly though, these acts gave the
Government the legal right to prosecute draft dodgers, and …these could
bring an end to at least some of the scrutiny that has plagued HRC for so
long just so long as we remain at war.
So, if you are wondering what any of this has to do with the Clinton
Foundation, well, HRC used the Foundation to facilitate at least one very
large arms deal with at least one Royal Gulfie. But it matters little
whether she used the foundation or not, HRC used her tenure at Foggy
Bottom to arrange a record number of weapons deals, and of course she is
mad as hell and determined to prove just how tough women can be (and
there is of course one man who she respects, H. Kissinger).
Anyway, it doesn't take a historian specializing in the build-up
leading to the two World Wars to figure out the rest. BOOM!!!
I'm a long-time reader. I admire what you and Simon have
done educating us about the financial crisis and its aftermath, and I
agree with most of your political positions, especially related to the
corrupting influence of money in politics. I have seen this first hand
over my years in politics and government, and I believe it is the single
most important issue we face because progress on all others depends on
it.
But in taking yet another hack at Hillary Clinton in this post, you've
contradicted yourself in a way that unravels your argument, while
engaging in false equivalencies and blowing a key fact out of proportion.
First, the internal contradiction:
"Bill and Hillary are getting on in years, they only have one child,
and she is married to a hedge fund manager. When you have that much
money, a dollar in your foundation is as good as a dollar in your bank
account. Once you have all your consumption needs covered, what do you
need money for?"
You imply, here, that the Clintons' wealth and Marc Mezvinsky's hedge
fund income have made the marginal value of another dollar in income de
minimis for the Clintons' personal finances. Then you write,
paraphrasing, that a dollar donated to the Foundation is as good as a
dollar deposited in their personal bank account; therefore, you imply,
money that goes to their foundation is as corrupting as money that goes
into their personal accounts.
You see the problem in claiming that a contribution to the Clinton
Foundation is a powerful incentive for HRC to tilt her foreign policy
positions, right? You just made the case for why a donation to the
Foundation has little personal value to the Clintons:
MV of $ to bank account = 0.
MV of $ to Foundation = MV of $ to bank account.
But you don't proceed to: Therefore, MV of $ to Foundation = 0. So,
according to your logic, there can be no corrupting influence.
You follow this, writing:
"If you're a Clinton, you want to have an impact in the world, reward
your friends, and burnish your legacy. A foundation is an excellent
vehicle for all of those purposes, for obvious reasons. It is also an
excellent way to transfer money to your daughter free of estate tax,
since she can control it after you die."
Your imply that the Clintons give equal weight to their desires to
reward their friends, burnish their legacy, and have an impact on the
world. What evidence do you have of this? Also, you implicitly denigrate
their charitable motives by describing them as a desire "to have an
impact on the world" without a nod to their clear intent to have an
impact that is profoundly constructive. You also speculate, without
providing any support, that the Foundation is a tax avoidance scheme to
enrich their daughter. I think you've crossed a line here.
Now for the false equivalencies:
"Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of Texas and president
of the United States, various people and companies decided to write him
checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they thought he
was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally,
happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas
and the United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush
never promised to do anything in particular for them. You would be
suspicious, right?"
Why imagine? We have the real-world case of the Saudis bailing out
George W's Harken Energy while his father was president. Of course, this
is only one example of how the lucrative Bush-Saudi relationship
generated income that went straight into the Bush "coffers".
So you implicitly compare HRC's alleged conflict related to the
family's charity with the Bush family conflict related to their own
personal bank accounts. While HW Bush, as president, made use of his long
friendship with the Saudis for the family's personal gain, HRC gave
access to the likes of the crown prince of Bahrain and Nobel Peace Prize
Winner Muhammad Yunus. Not equivalent. Not even close. I wonder how
routine it is for a Secretary of State to meet with the crown prince of
an oil-producing nation or a Nobel Prize winner versus how routine is it
for foreign oligarchs friendly to a president to bailout his son.
But at least the Saudis were allies of the US. Today, the GOP nominee
has undisclosed but apparently significant business ties to close allies
of the president of our greatest strategic adversary, and expresses his
admiration for an autocrat who is seizing territory in Europe and
terminating his opponents. I've missed your post on this one, though I'm
sure there is one.
One last point: This controversy involved some 85 meetings or
telephone calls HRC granted to Foundation donors. The media have morphed
this into 85 meetings, dropping the "and telephone calls," and made this
out to be a pretty big number. Naive readers and Hillary haters have
accepted it as such. If fact, 85 meetings and telephone calls over four
years are, well, de minimis.
Many of these donors had standing sufficient to get them in the door
whether they gave to the Foundation or not. But let's say all of them
gained access solely as a result of their donations. Over the four years
HRC was Secretary of State, 85 meetings and telephone calls work out to
1.8 meetings/calls per month. Let's make a guess that she met or talked
on the phone with an average of 15 people a day. So, one of every 250
people HRC met or had a phone call with each month, or 21 out of 3000
each year, would have secured their contact with her by donating to the
Foundation. 85 doesn't look so big in context, especially since no one
has presented any evidence of any quid pro quos.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 2:42 am
|
Philip,
The 85 meetings occurred during about half of HRC's term and I've not
heard anyone else dilute things with "phone calls".
Plus, the Bahrainis
were approved for a major arms deal after donating. The Prince tried to
make an appointment with HRC privately, but was made to go through State
Dept. channels before being allowed a meeting.
HRC was also involved in the selling of more weapons in her term than
all of those occurring during the Bush 43 terms combined.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 2:50 am
|
Philip.
Also, there is this:
"You had a situation, that The Wall Street Journal reported, where
Hillary Clinton herself intervened in a case dealing with taxes with UBS,
a Swiss bank, and then, suddenly, after that, UBS began donating big to
the Clinton Foundation. So there are many examples of-I mean, there's oil
companies-that's another one I should mention right now, which is that
oil companies were giving big to the Clinton Foundation while lobbying
the State Department-successfully-for the passage of the Alberta Clipper,
the tar sands pipeline."
David Sarota, interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/25/weapons_pipelines_wall_st_did_clinton
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 9:40 am
|
Other noteworthy donors to the Clinton Foundation:
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder
James Murdoch
Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox
Newsmax Media
Florida-based conservative media network
Thomson Reuters
Owner of the Reuters news service
$500,000-$1,000,000
Google
News Corporation Foundation
Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company
$250,000-$500,000
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publisher
Richard Mellon Scaife
Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
$100,000-$250,000
Abigail Disney
Documentary filmmaker
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Howard Stringer
Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive
Intermountain West Communications Company
Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)
$50,000-$100,000
Bloomberg L.P.
Discovery Communications Inc.
George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent
Mort Zuckerman
Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report
Time Warner Inc.
Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting
First, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a cite
supporting the statement that move arms sales occurred during HRC's four
years than during W's eight years. I'd like to look under the cover of
that one.
Also, it's important to note that a lot more people are involved in
approving arms sales than the SoS, including Republicans on the Hill.
Second, the AP touted its original story as being "meetings" but when
you read the story itself you found it was "meetings and phone calls."
Subsequently, the media and commentariat referred to 85 meetings,
dropping reference to phone calls.
Now for the arms sales to Bahrain. This one is especially juicy
because it's an excellent example of how HRC is being tarred.
The US has massive military assets in Bahrain, which hosts the largest
US military outpost in the Gulf. We've been making massive arms sale to
Bahrain for many years. So no surprise that we'd make some when HRC was
SoS.
And considering the strategic importance of Bahrain, there's no
surprise in HRC meeting with the crown prince. The surprise would be if
she declined to do so.
Now, if memory serves, and I encourage you to check me on this, the US
suspended arms sales to Bahrain while HRC was SoS in response to the
Bahrain's suppression of dissent among its Shia minority. Later, we
partially lifted the suspension to allow sales of arms Related to
protecting our huge naval base in Bahrain. I think this decision also
came while HRC was SoS.
So, the arm sales to Bahrain illustrates my objections to the facile
claims that contributions to the CF suggest that HRC is corrupt. These
claims bring one sliver of information to the discussion: so and so
donated money to the CF and then talked to HRC on the phone (or got a
meeting). No evidence is produced that there's a causal relationship
between the two much less a quid pro quo in which the donation and
meeting led HRC to act in an official capacity to benefit the
contributor.
All of the examples I've seen so far, the oil companies, UBS, etc. are
like this. No context, no evidence of a quid pro quo, all inuendo.
publiustex
|
August 26, 2016 at 10:20 am
|
I consider some of these contributors to be unsavory, and I wish they'd
give the Clinton Foundation a lot more money so they'd have less to sink
into GOP House and Senate races.
Philip Diehl
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:05 am
|
Ray LaPan-Love: You left out this quote from the interview with David
Sirota. Context matters.
'DAVID SIROTA: Well, my reaction to it is that
I think that if you look at some of these individual examples, I think
Paul is right that it's hard to argue that their donations to the
foundation got them access. They are - a lot of these people in the AP
story are people who knew her."
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:21 am
|
Pub,
I can't remember where I saw the comparison between the arms sales of HRC
and the shrub. But, if it comes to me I'll add it later. Meanwhile, here
is a link to lots of related info:
And yes, "no context, no evidence of a quid pro quo", and almost as if
she knew she might run for the prez job.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:41 am
|
Sorry Phillip, but gee whiz, am I to assume that nobody else has any
'context' on a story that is difficult to miss. Where does one draw such
lines? And the spin you are hoping for is somewhat unwound by David using
the phrase "hard to argue". That could be interpreted to simply mean that
the CF is good at obfuscating. And as someone who has worked in politics
and even for a large NPO, I can atably assure you
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:59 am
|
….!!!!!! my cursor got stuck on the previous comment as I tried to use
spell-check.
Anyway, I was trying to comfratably assure you that these organizations
are commonly structured to allow for deceptive practices. The Sierra Club
for example has affiliates that collect donations and then those funds
are used to pay the overhead of the affiliate 'before' any money is
donated to the Sierra Club. Thus, the Sierra club's solicitation costs
are not reflected in the percentage of funds used toward whatever cause.
This is not of course very subtle, and a Foundation such the CF could not
likely get away something this obvious, but…schemes such those exposed by
the Panama Papers should make us all hesitant to assume anything.
I'm a long-time fan of your smart writing and the important work that
you (and Simon) do. But what's with this constant Clinton Derangement
Syndrome? Why look so hard to find some morsel of "scandal" with the
Clintons when there's an entire herd of elephants in the room with the
Republican candidate??
As a wealth manager of many years, I must disagree with your
dismissive assessment of the Clintons' personal philanthropy as a
personal piggy bank. For sure, in a regular family foundation (many of my
clients!) the grants and donations are entirely at the discretion of the
controlling family, and very often it's all about shiny brass plaques and
photo ops with museum directors or mayors. Fine, that's our system, and
at least something gets done. And then the donors die and the plaques
fade. A shawl has no pockets.
But the Clinton operation is unique: they choose specific issues,
partner with competent outside groups, and then direct enormous extra
outside funds - not just their own meager foundation money - to tackle
the problems. This is only possible because of their international
status; not a Gates nor a Slim nor a Zuckerberg could engineer the same.
One can certainly speculate about who got access (a phone call,
seriously?) or who was schmoozed in what way in order to secure their
donations. But to broad-brush the whole of the Clinton philanthropy as
personal corruption is truly unfair. And it sure doesn't make sense when
there's so much worse and genuinely scandalous material on the other side
just waiting to be uncovered.
Keep the faith!
Bruce E. Woych
|
August 27, 2016 at 2:39 pm
|
Note: (from Global Research critique @ (eg:
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite
) cited above:
"Philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist, Andre
Vltchek has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest
books are: "Exposing Lies Of The Empire" and "Fighting Against Western
Imperialism". Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point
of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a
book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book
about Indonesia: "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". Andre is making
films for teleSUR and Press TV.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 27, 2016 at 3:42 pm
|
Bruce, (been awhile),
High grade stuff there. Yet, I'm not as taken by Caros' comment as you
seem to be. Near the end, this part: "The Clinton family business is
benefiting themselves AND OTHERS by way of their prominence."
To begin with, the Clinton's influence in arming the royal gulfies may
get us all killed, and so his comparison to the Bushs, while apt in a
current sense, it may well be…dangerously premature. Then too, Caro is of
course taking sides as if the Clintons don't fully realize the P.R.
benefits of giving away other peoples money. Which segs the question of
how could the Clintons have put so much time and effort into Hillary's
run, while creating so many pitfalls for themselves? Did they think the
Repubs might get nice? Are they stupid, arrogant maybe? Or just so
corrupt that they just can't stop like so many kleptomaniacs? In any
case, it isn't only Trump's fitness that we should be questioning.
I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration
into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I
think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants.
According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in
the U.S.:
"... Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC. ..."
"... That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction. ..."
"... While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers. ..."
"... "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism." ..."
"As for Syria, here too I'm not sure why you think this country caused its civil war, but it
did not."
Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted
after by the Saudis and GCC.
That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists
did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction.
While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing
the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers.
ilsm August 31, 2016 9:44 pm
"Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other
guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism."
Obama might as well have voted with Hillary for AUMF forever, he is running it.
"... Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form) about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton: https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png ..."
"... And here's a semi-CT saying that NBC tipped Clinton off to the debate questions a week in advance: http://baltimoregazette.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-debate/ ..."
Here's an interesting analysis someone posted to reddit (in annoying gif screenshot form)
about Holt being biased in favor of Clinton:
https://i.redd.it/jixd3s8d05ox.png
"... To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the now-famous " Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side. ..."
"... So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique. ..."
"... The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis in that area. ..."
"... Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia. They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet. You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far. ..."
As most of you know, I had been endorsing Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety,
because I live in California. It isn't safe to be a Trump supporter where I live. And it's bad for
business too. But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump, and I owe you an explanation. So here
it goes.
1. Things I Don't Know: There are many things I don't know. For example, I don't know the
best way to defeat ISIS. Neither do you. I don't know the best way to negotiate trade policies. Neither
do you. I don't know the best tax policy to lift all boats. Neither do you. My opinion on abortion
is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible
laws. So on most political topics, I don't know enough to make a decision. Neither do you, but you
probably think you do.
Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am
not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed
raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.
I'll say more about that, plus some other issues I do understand, below.
... ... ...
4. Clinton's Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn't look sufficiently
healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country. If you disagree, take a look at the
now-famous "
Why aren't I 50 points ahead " video clip. Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too,
and Hillary wouldn't be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.
5. Pacing and Leading: Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and
security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something
that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders
like me see this as something called pacing and leading . Trump "paces" the public – meaning
he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses
on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest
bad-ass on the topic, he is free to "lead," which we see him do by softening his deportation stand,
limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion,
and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading,
you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That's
how I see him.
So when Clinton supporters ask me how I could support a "fascist," the answer is that he isn't
one. Clinton's team, with the help of Godzilla, have effectively persuaded the public to see Trump
as scary. The persuasion works because Trump's "pacing" system is not obvious to the public. They
see his "first offers" as evidence of evil. They are not. They are technique.
And being chummy with Putin is more likely to keep us safe, whether you find that distasteful
or not. Clinton wants to insult Putin into doing what we want. That approach seems dangerous as hell
to me.
6. Persuasion: Economies are driven by psychology. If you expect things to go well tomorrow,
you invest today, which causes things to go well tomorrow, as long as others are doing
the same. The best kind of president for managing the psychology of citizens – and therefore the
economy – is a trained persuader. You can call that persuader a con man, a snake oil salesman, a
carnival barker, or full of shit. It's all persuasion. And Trump simply does it better than I have
ever seen anyone do it.
The battle with ISIS is also a persuasion problem. The entire purpose of military action against
ISIS is to persuade them to stop, not to kill every single one of them. We need military-grade persuasion
to get at the root of the problem. Trump understands persuasion, so he is likely to put more emphasis
in that area.
Most of the job of president is persuasion. Presidents don't need to understand policy minutia.
They need to listen to experts and then help sell the best expert solutions to the public. Trump
sells better than anyone you have ever seen, even if you haven't personally bought into him yet.
You can't deny his persuasion talents that have gotten him this far.
In summary, I don't understand the policy details and implications of most of either Trump's or
Clinton's proposed ideas. Neither do you. But I do understand persuasion. I also understand when
the government is planning to confiscate the majority of my assets. And I can also distinguish between
a deeply unhealthy person and a healthy person, even though I have no medical training. (So can you.)
I will be
live streaming my viewing of the debate Monday night, with my co-host and neighbor,
Kristina Basham . Tune your television to the debate and use your phone or iPad with the Periscope
app, and look for me at @ScottAdamsSays.
"... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
"... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most
important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with
all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies
of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war
and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for
his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and
with all nations.
No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously
as this essay does.
But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked
the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries
as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies"
should sound an alarm.
No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though
he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized
ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility"
seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.
I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There
has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since
Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson
of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again
for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.
"... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
"... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
"... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance
When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times
throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is
not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement
for these trade deals.
The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate
lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:
"His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."
These comments could well describe this NYT piece.
For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:
"His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country,"
though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."
It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy
grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the
rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession,
employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points
from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research
** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.
The NYT piece continues:
"[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening
manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero'
American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last
year."
It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would
not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore,
his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico
would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact
that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner
of last night's Yankees' game.
The next sentence adds:
"Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended
that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."
While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves,
it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund.
This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side.
These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.
If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion
in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its
short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would
agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise
be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.
The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than
two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who
holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which
was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in
Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.
In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:
"Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports
and growth in the United States, but not significantly."
It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion
take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger
patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection
are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to
an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially
in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether
Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration
before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential
debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.
The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign
spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused
to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership
now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.
After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart
News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:
BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the
TPP?"
ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language
and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."
BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"
ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."
Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck
session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade
deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined
the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination
into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room
post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the
TPP from consideration before Congress.
"... If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse. ..."
"... That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men... ..."
"... Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages. ..."
"... Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best. ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and
author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
The New York Fed published an eye-opener of an article on its blog,
Liberty Street Economics , seemingly about the aging of the US labor force as one of the big
economic trends of our times with "implications for the behavior of real wage growth." Then it explained
why "negative growth" – the politically correct jargon for "decline" – in real wages is going to
be the new normal for an ever larger part of the labor force.
If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and
have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And
it's going to get worse.
The authors looked at the wages of all employed people aged 16 and older in the Current Population
Survey (CPS), both monthly data from 1982 through May 2016 and annual data from 1969 through 1981.
They then restricted the sample to employed individuals with wages, which boiled it down to 7.6 million
statistical observations.
Then they adjusted the wages via the Consumer Price Index to 2014 dollars and divide the sample
into 140 different "demographic cohorts" by decade of birth, sex, race, and education. As an illustration
of the principles at work, they picked the cohort of white males born in the decade of the 1950s.
That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census
Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this
article –
That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks –
and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36%
from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men...
The number of public companies have been cut in half in the last 20 years. Just for one metric.
So for those born in the 50's, reaching middle or senior management by the time they were in
their mid 40's (1999) was increasingly harder as the probability of getting squeezed out multiplied.
In the last ten years, the birth / death rate of startups / small business has reversed as well.
There is probably ten other examples of why age is not the mitigating criteria for the decline
in wages. It's not skill sets, not ambition, not flexibility. Pure number of chances for advancement
and therefore associated higher wages has declined precipitously.
Anti Trust Enforcement went out the window as Neo-Liberal policies converted to political donations
for promoting consolidation.
Now watch even those in their 20-30 age group will experience the same thing as H-1b unlimited
takes hold with the Obama / Clinton TTP burning those at younger demographics. Are you going to
say they are "too old" as well to write software?
Tell me where you want to go, and I will focus on selective facts and subjective interpretation
of those selective facts to yield the desired conclusions.
Barack Peddling Fiction Obama – BS at the B.L.S. – has a multiplicity of these metrics.
Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the
corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The
"study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure
the role of inflation in lowering real wages.
Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and
43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003
at best.
The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who
are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US. That's
why nearly every large country has VAT. VAT rebates also
give foreign producers a competitive advantage over US
manufacturers in third-country markets.
It's also a major incentive for US companies to supply the
US market via Mexico or other VAT countries, since VAT
countries rely on VAT for a huge chunk of their tax base.
Since foreign profits of US companies are not taxed unless
repatriated, the incentives against US production are
compounded.
Or ... VAT is just a sales tax collected on the production
side. It's not like importers to the US get to avoid US
sales taxes.
MacAuley -> sanjait...
, -1
The difference is that VAT countries tend to rely much
more heavily on the VAT than the US relies on sales taxes,
so sales taxes are much less than VAT. Sales taxes in the
US range from Zero in Indiana to 7.5% in California. VAT
rates in the EU range between 20% and 25%. The VAT is 16%
in Mexico and 17% in China.
There may be some
intellectual equivalence in your argument, but the
real-world difference is huge.
Dave Maxwell :
, -1
The VAT indirectly subsidizes exports. If you have country
A that relies 100% on VAT for tax revenue then the
exporting corporation in that country incurs and pays zero
taxes on exports. If the company exports 100% of its
product that company pays zero in taxes.
In the US states generally exclude sales tax on materials
purchased for manufacturing and on products sold for
resale and for export outside that state (including to
other states)so there is similarity with the VAT. The big
difference is magnitude of the tax. States sales taxes
average around 7% compared to VAT in the 15% to 20% range.
VAT is a much bigger subsidy.
Sanjait -> Dave Maxwell...
, -1
Well, I should have scrolled down before expressing
disbelief.
But if you want to talk facts, then note that
no country relies 100% on a VAT. No country is even close:
Mexico is actually the highest in reliance on
consumption taxes generally (which is how the OECD
classifies a VAT), but as the report notes, only part of
the consumption tax mix is VAT. It also includes other
excise taxes and fees. In Mexico I'd assume this includes
oil industry revenues going to the government, which as of
recently made up a third of the national government's
total revenue mix.
Anyway, what is the point you guys are really trying to
make? Is it that the policy mix of taxes has some effect
on export incentives? Well, yeah that's true. But
consumption taxes aren't even the whole story there. How
about the way the US handles international transfer
pricing? Lots of things factor in.
Actually most countries have VAT and when two countries
with VAT trade, then VAT is always raised on all goods
where they are sold to an end consumer. Simple. The issue
comes when a country has no VAT and relies almost only on
income tax. Income tax is then levied on exports but not
on imports, so that the exports from such a country are at
a relative disadvantage UNLESS the real exchange rate
adjusts (as it should). Because the real exchange rate
should adjust to equalize such effects, this argument is
really just hot air. But of course, if he really wanted to
do something about it, he could offer to institute a VAT
himself, as most countries have.
"... 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.
Peter K. :
September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM DeLong on helicopter money: "The swelling wave of argument and
discussion around "helicopter money" has two origins:
First, as Harvard's Robert Barro says: there has been no recovery since 2010.
The unemployment rate here in the U.S. has come down, yes. But the unemployment rate has come
down primarily because people who were unemployed have given up and dropped out of the labor force.
Shrinkage in the share of people unemployed has been a distinctly secondary factor. Moreover, the
small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how
prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen,
had good reason to anticipate, and deserves.
The only bright spot is a relative one: things in other rich countries are even worse.
..."
I thought Krugman and Furman were bragging about Obama's tenure.
"Now note that back in 1936 [John Maynard Keynes had disagreed][]:
"The State will have to exercise a guiding influence... partly by fixing the rate of interest,
and partly, perhaps, in other ways.... It seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on
the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself.... I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive
socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will
co-operate with private initiative..."
By the 1980s, however, for Keynes himself the long run had come, and he was dead. The Great Moderation
of the business cycle from 1984-2007 was a rich enough pudding to be proof, for the rough consensus
of mainstream economists at least, that Keynes had been wrong and Friedman had been right.
But in the aftermath of 2007 it became very clear that they-or, rather, we, for I am certainly
one of the mainstream economists in the roughly consensus-were very, tragically, dismally and grossly
wrong."
DeLong sounds very much left rather than center-left. His reasons for supporting Hillary over
Sanders eludes me.
Hillary's $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small as center-leftist Krugman put it.
Now we face a choice:
Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly
subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then
kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?
Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so
that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually
take on a co-leading or a leading role?
Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?
Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly
seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it,
of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And
our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that
attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going
through door number (2), which we know ends badly..."
------------
Some commenters believe more fiscal policy via Congress is politically more realistic than helicopter
money.
I don't know, maybe they're right. I do know Hillary's proposals are too small. And her aversion
to government debt and deficit is wrong given the economic context and market demand for safe assets.
"Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as
its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America
had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves."
?????? The rate of (measured) productivity growth is not all that important. What has happened
to real median income.
And why are quoting from Robert Barro who is basically a freshwater economist. Couldn't you
find somebody sensible?
Barro wants us to believe we have been at full employment all along. Of course that would mean
any increase in aggregate demand would only cause inflation. Of course many of us think Barro
lost it years ago.
These little distinctions are alas lost on PeterK.
[1] Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized
as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission
and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?
[2] Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so
that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually
take on a co-leading or a leading role?
[3] Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools
it needs?
Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly
seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it,
of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And
our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that
attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going
through door number (2), which we know ends badly...""
---------------------
Conservatives want 1 and 2 ends badly, so 3 is the only choice.
Lambert: " "Smart" is one of those 10%-er weasel words. Was NAFTA smart? Why or what not? Smart
for whom?"
----
Indeed. Whether a deal is smart to make depends on one's real objective. Hows'about clearing that
question up, Mrs C?
"... Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another. ..."
"... And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do. ..."
"... Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. ..."
But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it's not that hard. That
is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization
in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.
Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States
will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate
countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending-
trouble or another.
What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge
any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places
that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.
That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way
towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest
is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.
And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth
and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the
above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be
against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get
that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.
So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody
left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'. While at the same time, the numbers of poor
and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally
no left left.
Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become
part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for
the deterioration in people's lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may
try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled
by the two-headed monster's fake left in their countries and their own parties.
================================================
This is from today's Links, but I didn't have a chance to post this snippet. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA
Long time since we had 5% – if the whole system is financial scheme is premised on growth,
and there is less and less of it ever year, it doesn't look sustainable. How bad http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/200pm-water-cooler-9272016.html#comment-2676054does
it have to get for how many before the model is chucked???
In the great depression, even the bankers were having a tough time. If the rich are exempt
from suffering, I think history has shown that a small elite can impose suffering on masses for
a long time…
'there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'.
Actually, there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
How would we measure this growth that is supposed to be over? Yes of course there are the conventional
measurements like GDP, but it's not zero. Yes of course if inflation is understated it would overstate
GDP, and yes GDP measurements may not measure much as many critics have said. But what about other
measures?
Is oil use down, are CO2 emissions down, is resource use in general down? If not it's growth
(or groath). This growth is at the cost of the planet but that's why GDP is flawed. And the benefit
of this groath goes entirely to the 1%ers, but that's distribution.
The left failed, I don't know all the reasons (and it's always hard to oppose the powers that
be, the field always tilts toward them, it's never a fair fight) but it failed. That's what we
see the results of.
Someone very smart said "the Fed makes the economy more stable".
He also quoted The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you
think".
Definition of stable: firm; steady; not wavering or changeable.
As in: US GDP growth of a paltry 1.22% per year.
But hey it only took an additional trillion $ in debt per year to stay "stable".
there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
========
That's why in 1992 Francis Futurama refirmed the end of history that was predicted by Hegel some
150 years earlier.
"... "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time." ..."
"... Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game. ..."
"... That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. ..."
"... "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump. ..."
The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack http://nyti.ms/2cSvOlO
NYT - ALEXANDER BURNS - SEPT. 27, 2016
A defensive Donald J. Trump lashed out at the debate moderator, complained about his microphone
and threatened to make Bill Clinton's marital infidelity a campaign issue in a television appearance
on Tuesday just hours after his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.
And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal
criticism at a Miss Universe pageant winner, held up by Mrs. Clinton in Monday night's debate
as an example of her opponent's disrespect for women.
Mr. Trump insisted in the Fox News appearance that he had been right to disparage the beauty
queen, Alicia Machado, for her physique.
"She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem,"
said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that - her attitude.
And we had a real problem with her."
Mrs. Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado by name, quoting insults that Ms. Machado has attributed
to Mr. Trump and noting that the pageant winner had become a citizen to vote in the 2016 election.
During the debate, he showed disbelief at the charge that he had ridiculed Ms. Machado, asking
Mrs. Clinton repeatedly, "Where did you find this?"
But Mr. Trump abruptly shifted course a few hours later, with comments that threatened to escalate
and extend an argument that appeared to be one of his weakest moments of the debate.
Mrs. Clinton assailed him late in the debate for deriding women as "pigs, slobs and dogs."
Mr. Trump had no ready answer for the charge of sexism, and offered a muddled reply that cited
his past feud with the comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
His comments attacking Ms. Machado recalled his frequent practice, during the Republican primaries
and much of the general election campaign, of bickering harshly with political bystanders, sometimes
savaging them in charged language that ended up alienating voters. In the past, he has made extended
personal attacks on the Muslim parents of an Army captain killed in Iraq and on a Hispanic federal
judge.
Trump aides considered it a sign of progress in recent weeks that the Republican nominee was
more focused on criticizing Mrs. Clinton, and less prone to veering off into such self-destructive
public feuds.
Going after Ms. Machado may be especially tone deaf for Mr. Trump, at a moment in the race
when he is seeking to reverse voters' ingrained negative views of his personality. Sixty percent
of Americans in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month said they thought Mr. Trump was biased
against women and minorities, and Mrs. Clinton has been airing a television commercial highlighting
his history of caustic and graphic comments about women.
Mrs. Clinton pressed her advantage on Tuesday, telling reporters on her campaign plane that
Mr. Trump had raised "offensive and off-putting" views that called into question his fitness for
the presidency.
"The real point," she said, "is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the
most important, hardest job in the world."
Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will strike out on the campaign trail on Tuesday with the goal
of framing the debate's outcome to their advantage. While Mr. Trump is in Florida, Mrs. Clinton
plans to campaign in North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state where polls show her and
Mr. Trump virtually tied.
It will likely take a few days to measure any shift in the race after the candidates' clash
at Hofstra University on Long Island. Polls had shown the presidential race narrowing almost to
a dead heat on the national level, with Mr. Trump drawing close to Mrs. Clinton in several swing
states where she had long held an advantage.
But Mr. Trump appeared thrown on Tuesday by his uneven performance the night before, offering
a series of different explanations for the results. On Fox, he cited "unfair questions" posed
by the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, and insinuated that someone might have tampered with
his microphone.
Moving forward in his contest with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump said he might "hit her harder,"
perhaps raising the issue of "her husband's women." Should Mr. Trump opt for that risky approach,
he could begin to do so during a campaign swing in Florida on Tuesday.
And in another indication that Mr. Trump has little intention of shifting his tone, the Republican
nominee repeated the attack on Mrs. Clinton that spurred their Monday exchange about gender in
the first place: that she lacks the physical vigor to be president.
"I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's
home all the time."
Mrs. Clinton was dismissive on Tuesday of Mr. Trump's barbs, shrugging off a question about
his threat to go after Mrs. Clinton and her husband personally and his dismay about the microphone.
"Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night," she said. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Shamed and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe
Mocked by Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/2cSGwsk
NYT - MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY - Sep 27
For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after
she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.
Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, at the time an executive producer
of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens
of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.
Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories
in front of the news media. "This is somebody who likes to eat," Mr. Trump said from inside the
gym. ...
(The Donald is clearly no slouch in that department.)
Trump, 'the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in
New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.' ...
Donald Trump Means Business in Iowa: Night in Motel, and a Day in Church
http://nyti.ms/1UlcJI3
NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - JAN. 24, 2016
MUSCATINE, Iowa - Donald J. Trump spent the last seven months saying he wanted to win. Now
he is really acting like it. ...
On Friday night, the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump
Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., instead slept in a
Holiday Inn Express in Sioux Center, Iowa. ("Good mattress," he said afterward. "Clean.") ...
"I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's
home all the time."
Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological
disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game.
That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might
have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates.
This is a fair game.
"... The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today. ..."
"... I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money. ..."
"The narcissist devours people, consumes their output, and casts the empty, writhing shells aside."
Sam Vaknin
I make it no secret that I find Hillary Clinton to be both morally repugnant and appallingly dishonest.
The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style.
The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic
and political system today.
But that does not mean that I am blind to what is being offered by The Donald.
I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political
system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big
money.
What Krugman doesn't get is that trade
is resonating as a an issue and it's resonating for a reason. Look at Brexit. Preaching to the choir
that we should it ignore it - it makes corporations and the donor class happy - doesn't change that
fact.
Maybe you missed the simple point.
Having a sales tax is not trade protection. Trump is either an idiot or he is playing people
to be idiots. I guess you are OK with this.
I have repeatedly pointed out
that if country A mostly uses VAT (which taxes imports but not exports) and country B mostly
uses income tax (which taxes exports but not imports) then that affects the effective exchange
rate.
IN PRINCIPLE the exchange rate should adjust for this. The question is whether it does (but
note also the incentive to export effects). The problem with all these issues is that it is
complicated and for people who can't think in terms of more than 15 words at a time it is difficult.
The US$ and Mexican peso do float
with respect to each other so you are correct. Besides, the Republican plan to replace those
massive income tax cuts for the rich that Trump wants is to hit the rest of us with sales (aka
VAT) taxes.
"... Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia. ..."
"... The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman. ..."
Trump was proud he evaded taxes and yet he complains about the state of American infrastructure?
He babbled incoherently about Yellen and the Fed.
Yes Republicans and Bush squandered the fact
that Clinton/Gingrich balanced the budget with tax cuts for the rich.
Krugman has made the distinction between center-left and left in the context of attacking Bernie
Sanders. Read Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post on UK Labour.
Hillary rightly lambasted trickle-down economics last night and contrasted Republican economics
with Democrats' "middle class" economics. But she mostly went after Trump at a personal level and
I thought she was effective. Maybe in the next debates she'll talk more about economics.
Her description of what caused the financial crisis wasn't really accurate but so what, it was
close enough.
She did brag about her husband's tenure (and how many times during the primary we were told by
supporters that it wasn't fair to equate her with her husband.
Which is where Trump would go off on NAFTA.
Bill Clinton's tenure wasn't all good. He said
the "era of big government was over." He enacted Republican lite policies which helped lead to the
financial crisis. He didn't enact policies that helped globalization's losers. The Clinton years
ended in a tech-stock bubble and financial crisis in East Asia.
Simon Wren-Lewis's blog post doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe it's my fault. All he does is
link to the Owen Smith piece which says Labour doesn't poll well and SWL complains Corbyn won't win
elections.
The reason to win elections is not just to prevent disastrous conservative policies. It's
to enact good policies. Left policies are better than center-left. Hillary is center-left as Krugman
pointed out. Corbyn is left. Yes the next 40 days has a contest between between the center-left and
insane right, but that doesn't mean we cant' fact check the center-left pundits like Krugman.
As even Krugman pointed out, Hillary's "investment" of $275 billion over 5 years is substantially
too small. It will lead to a reliance on monetary policy from a shaky Fed which may create more asset
bubbles if regulators and regulations aren't up to the task of preventing them.
It was very center-left of Hillary to brag that her plan is revenue neutral. Maybe that's the
smart thing to do politically, but not economically and it's not being honest with the voters.
I hate how shes smiling and at one part almost laughed at something serious like this is a game.
she never directly responds to what lester or trump asks, but you see trump directly answering
or responding to what she asks. One thing i want to know is, but will never know, does she want
to destroy this country or is she so ignorant that she will destroy it by trying to help. Her
views are wrong on economy, there may be somethings that i will agree with her but when it comes
to economy she will wreck this country.
If Hillary is in the White House then we may as well has the Islamic flag above it instead of
the stars & stripes. Craigslist has ads for protesters to be paid to show where there's a Trump
rally to harass. In the paper a few months back a man woke to find windows of his car bashed in.
The car had a Trump sticker. The anti Trump climate in networks NBC & MSNBC & CNN & Morning CBS.
On YouTube Hillary is bringing 65K rufugees to US next year.
"... Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then". ..."
"... May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also he might be afraid of Clinton clan. ..."
"... He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen. ..."
Yes, people kept saying how they wish Trump would win the R primaries because it would be so
exciting when he took his attack to Hillary and gave her what she may very well deserve. And I
was always "I'll believe it when I see it, not until then".
I don't think Trump was vastly different in the R primary debates (he was unfocused and narcissistic
then as well), but I always suspected somehow that he would play softball rather than hardball
when it came to the REAL showdown with Clinton (no "little Rubio" here). Well I told ya so. Although
there are 3 more debates so I guess I could still be proved wrong. But it's looking like I told
you so.
What so great or even fun and entertaining about Trump again? These circuses are completely
boring!!! Well he's not Clinton I suppose there is always that.
----
I guess the 10% think they got there by doing well on tests and not sheer luck and choosing the
right parents. Hmm well screw em.
likbez
"I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder?"
May be… He could easily bury her, but preferred not to. He was definitely unprepared. Also
he might be afraid of Clinton clan.
"A lot of people check out after the first 30 minutes of one debate and never come back."
True -- It was pretty disgusting performance on both sides.
ChiGal in Carolina
Just had my first in-person encounter with an apparent Trump supporter, 40ish lifeguard at
the community pool down here. He was very pleased with last night's debate, thought Trump showed
he has self-control and was generally presidential (!).
All my friends and family thought Clinton "won" but it's not gonna matter.
charles leseau
He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty queen.
Amen. It takes very little wit to point out immediately how irrelevant such a thing is to a
presidential debate, but instead he walked right into it like a rattled kid who doesn't think
half a second before responding.
Here's St. Clair's liveblog of the big debate. Sampler
+ Lester Holt needs to be extremely cautious tonight. Lots of police and armed security in
the debate hall. No sudden movements. Holt must keep his hands firmly on the podium at all times.
+ Bill and Melania shake hands at center stage. Bill whispers something in her ear. I think
it was: "Text me."
+ No national anthem. Kaepernick wins!
+ Hillary enters, as the Woman in Red. The stains of Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Syria and Yemen.
"Gah. A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both
domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn't protect
against imports - which is why it's allowed under
international trade rules, and not considered a
protectionist trade policy."
I think what Trump was
getting at was that exports are typically exempt from VAT.
So while Krugman is correct that Mexican VAT applies
equally to Mexican goods sold in Mexico and US goods
imported into Mexico, it doesn't apply to Mexican goods
exported to the US.
But honestly, who cares? Trump is not espousing any
sort of realistic solution to the problems facing the
middle class. Imposing tariffs, tearing up trade
agreements, and kicking out immigrants is baby talk
intended to placate the ill-informed.
Yes I think trump garbled his point
In the briefing he got from his brain trust
I suspect he heard something like this
The vat advantage is more like an undervalued peso
effect on lowering "the cost "
of US exports
But without the protectionist effect of raising the cost
of US imports
Perhaps his apparent ADHD
Betrayed him here
He heard the word protectionist and forgot the details and
the precise fact
There is no protectionist effect of the vat export rebate
PRD -> pgl...
, -1
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the arithmetic I'm
picking up from Krugman which shows Trump's fallacy.
If you have a $10,000 Mexican car that paid a $2,000
VAT, the exporter gets reimbursed for the $2,000 dollar
paid in VAT which would normally get passed along to the
consumer, thus making the price that it is exported at
$8,000. That $8,000 dollar car would subsequently pay
sales tax in the USA.
If you have a $10,000 USA car being exported to Mexico,
it would get the VAT tax added on to be passed along to
the consumer, thus making it $12,500. That same car would
pay sales tax in the United States on it being worth
$10,000.
So basically, the Mexican car is actually only worth
$8,000 because the VAT that would have been passed along
to the consumers (and had been paid already) is reimbursed
to the exporter. The American car is worth $10,000 and
must pay the VAT, because the Mexican car would pay the
VAT in Mexico as well. Essentially he's equating an $8,000
Mexican car with a $10,000 American car.
Shah of Bratpuhr :
, -1
I highly doubt Trump considers people that understand
economics to be his target audience. Trump speaks only to
his target audience not about issues, but rather how they
feel right now at this exact moment. Perhaps his strategy
is to keep people angry and fearful enough by Election
Day?
His message to his audience: "you feel badly because
you're not rich", audience nods, "it's this scapegoat's
fault", audience cheers, "Only I can rid you of this
scapegoat and when I do, you'll feel better"
Paine -> Shah of Bratpuhr...
, -1
Yes
He has learned the devil can easily hide in the
details
JohnH :
, -1
"Trump's whole view on trade is that other people are
taking advantage of us - that it's all about dominance,
and that we're weak."
You have to admit, Trump was
right...he just doesn't understand who's taking advantage
of whom. He really should understand this (and probably
does)...the winners are all around him on Park Ave, Fifth
Ave, and Wall Street. Of course, you'd never expect Trump
to admit that he's part of the predatory class, would you?
Ben Groves :
, -1
Trade agreements hurt a lot of country's that American
"businesses" deal with more than America a good deal of
the time. NAFTA killed Mexican farming. It was part of the
package along with the 2002 subsidy agreement after 9/11
that started nationalizing agri-business. This also
allowed drug production to take off and cartels to expand
quickly, using the increased volume of business
transactions to ship more drugs across the borders into
Donald Trump supporters noses and veins.
"After a shaky start, Clinton was mostly prepared, disciplined, and methodical in her attacks.
By contrast, after landing some early blows on trade, Trump was mostly winging it" [NBC]. That's
how it felt to me. Of course, 10%-ers like preparation. Preparation leads to passing your test! But
in this case, they are right to do so.
==================================================== Trump could have brought up:
deplorables – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
Goldman Sachs – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
email – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
bankers – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder? A lot of people check out after the first
30 minutes of one debate and never come back. And I'm really into it – and I doubt I will waste my time again. Even though I am a big believer
in judging people/politicians by what they do and not what they say, Trump's immaturity has frayed
my last nerve. He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty
queen.
"... Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default. ..."
"... Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high. ..."
"... Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten. ..."
No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to
Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August, a sharp
reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of Fortune 100 CEOs supported Mitt
Romney.
One executive is quoted taking offense at Trump's ethnic slurs. But that
doesn't explain the complete unanimity. What does explain it: overseas sales
account for a third of large companies' revenues. Chart:
Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations -
currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of
revenues to service their debts. Some will default.
Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic
production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when
corporate leverage already is too high.
Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with
Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will
quickly be forgotten.
If Donnie's serious, then he's Herbert Hoover II, and the long-suffering Dr
Hussman becomes a billionaire after the Crash Heard Round the World.
"... This is an impossible task. She is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall Street) and unrepentant neocon. ..."
"... My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters are not numerous enough to secure the victory. ..."
Trump supporters will not be converted.
What we need to do is 1) get people who lean Clinton to show up and vote for her and 2) convince
fence-sitters that she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her. Towards that end, we
need to establish what's important to them: policy positions, nice clothes, likes dogs? Find out
what appeals to THEM, not necessarily you, and if Clinton has those traits even a little bit then
make the pitch for her based on those traits. Engage those voters. Don't just speculate on what might
or should appeal to them. Ask them what is important to them and ASK FOR THEIR VOTE!
I have come across a few Trump
supporters in my travels and what they all have in common is what they have to say about Hillary,
while about Trump they are mostly mute.
Hillary hate is strong.* It's
not as widespread in eastern MA as it is in other parts of the country but where it exists
it looks like it's just as intense.
*There's no intellectual consistency to it. It's visceral.
"convince fence-sitters that
she's the better choice and to show up and vote for her"
This is an impossible task. She
is a war criminal, a stanch neoliberal (like her husband, who sold Democratic Party to Wall
Street) and unrepentant neocon.
Trump might be a crook and as bad as she is, but in a larger scale of things he did not
committed the crimes she committed. Yet. And at least on the surface he is against neoliberal
globalization.
My feel is that Democrats lost the support of rank and file union members in this election
cycle. Serial betrays starting from Bill Clinton "triangulation" and "third way" scams finally
got under the skin of workers and they do not any longer consider Democratic Party as a political
entity representing their interests. And financial oligarchy and professional classes voters
are not numerous enough to secure the victory.
And that might well spells doom for Demorats.
On the other hand Trump could bury Clinton but choose do not even touch her most vulnerable
points (Iraq war vote, emailgate, Libya, Clinton Foundation scam. health issues, Bill Clinton
"legacy"). Is he afraid of something or just saving the shots ? Also he looked completely unprepared.
Clinton relied on notes and pre-defined gambits, while Trump relied on intuition. It did not
play well for him.
"... Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. ..."
"... Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this ..."
"... Hillary gave no indication she is going to change the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great and there is no reason to change anything. ..."
"... I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver; some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter. ..."
"... I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things" have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming… ..."
"... I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base is now strongly opposed to free trade. ..."
"... If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first? ..."
"... The Democrats in opposition will be just as feckless as the Republicans have been effective. ..."
"... One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit to national sovereignty. ..."
"... HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a "known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down. ..."
"... I don't think Clinton won every category just most. I think Trump won on "there is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC". ..."
"... How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm? ..."
"... That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly. ..."
"... What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable. ..."
"... He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting her on them. ..."
"... "Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't feel bad though most of us were naïve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time. ..."
"... Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find infomercials masterful then I guess. ..."
"... Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege of exclusion? ..."
"... Private enterprise, Jim. You can always put up the money for third party candidates to debate on prime time. Thought that was how the market "works". ..."
"... I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent; I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points that he always ..."
"... However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do, and the crowd was told not to react. ..."
"... The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where we are. ..."
"... I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her. ..."
"... Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump… ..."
"... I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better. Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe. ..."
"... I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….") ..."
"... So which one is the Grandiose and the other an Insecure type ..."
"... ….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked down a lot during her responses…… ..."
"... OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond……. ..."
"... Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash….. ..."
"... I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly….. ..."
"... He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will probably get what she wants…. ..."
"... Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at? ..."
"... I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing for me – we're all screwed. ..."
"... I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage? ..."
"... Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched, she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering. There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar. Based on 2, she won. ..."
"... Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate for a dinner and a speech. ..."
"... Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief. ..."
"... One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move. ..."
"... Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis – which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches. ..."
"... I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history? ..."
"... Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary, rather than Secretary of State. ..."
"... Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me overshadowed by the rest of it). ..."
"... Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course, the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent. ..."
"... Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First, Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees. He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation, this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third, Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad. ..."
"... Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates. Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are. ..."
"... Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for America or the world at large ..."
"... I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication. (For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.) Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect? No. ..."
"... I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war, which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something. ..."
"... Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks' revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately needs an American leader of calibre. ..."
"... If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor, mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for slave wages. ..."
"... Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving away. ..."
"... Senior Romney strategist: Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show. ..."
"... Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate. If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank more slowly than faster. ..."
"... This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the "winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable. ..."
"... Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre performance? ..."
"... Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute debate? ..."
I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.
Yes, and connects the $6 trillion invested in blowing up the Middle East to what it could have
been used for instead, and repeatedly called out big bureaucracy for big mistakes.
Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe
it or not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him.
Same with "you had 30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build
on our success" schtick is such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this
election a referendum on the political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this
Agreed here. My SO put it better than me: Hillary gave no indication she is going to change
the course we are on now; in fact, reading between the lines, she thinks things are going great
and there is no reason to change anything. " And Trump did do a good job of identifying a
number of things that are wrong, even if he wasn't particularly articulate in discussing them.
I think there is a better chance that Trump will actually try to fix things, but tax policy
and several other things did not give me great hope that he has any idea how to fix things, or
will learn & adapt quickly enough. On the plus side, some people talk better than they deliver;
some people deliver better than they talk. At least there's a chance he's one of the latter.
Hillary… we know what we are getting. She won't deliver better than she talks. I have nothing
kind to say here, other than she did a good job of finishing her sentences, and her tax policy
is better than Trump's. And that she used to be much, much better in debates. I remain flummoxed
that people are giving her credit for doing well in this one.
Trump makes an occasional noise in that direction, IF there has been a related segment on the
talk shows or one of the conservative sites. Where in his stated policy (ie on his website or
in positions in writing) is anything to suggest he will fix any of that misery? Tax cuts and deregulation?
Letting him negotiate trade deals, instead of Obama people?
I can't find where he would refuse "trade deals", only ones "These Morons running things"
have negotiated. I'm betting he would push them with minor changes, as will HRC. ISDS is a foregone
conclusion, with either. Jesus, one of his advisors is Larry f'n Kudlow. If the regulars here
are not appalled by the guys he has surrounded himself with, I sure am. I can see it coming…
At least Trump has the good taste not to have Kudlow sit on his lap. Or vice versa.
Reading liberals explain how George W. Bush is just a misunderstood patriot has been…educational.
Not in the way they intend.
I think Trump's probably serious about trade. But if I understand the structural issues
correctly, it doesn't really matter whether he is serious or not. Apparently the Republican base
is now strongly opposed to free trade. (I think most already were, but now they have permission
to affirmatively say so, and pick up stragglers.)
I know Obama is counting on getting votes from people thrown out of office and looking for
lobbying work. But I don't think there will be enough of them, will there? The Dems aren't going
to flip either house, it looks like - certainly not by large numbers. That means there won't be
tons of "loose" Republican votes, Republicans returning won't be incentivized to betray their
incoming President for Obama, and Democrats on their way out may see shrinking lobbying opportunities,
as the Democratic Party - IF Clinton doesn't take power - will be very weak at both the federal
and state level.
If my assessment is correct, TPP dies with a Trump win. There isn't an option to reopen
negotiations, is there? A brand new "Trump style" treaty would take years to negotiate, and he
has "one term" written all over him. This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent
on TPP passing first?
I am looking forward to Democratic Senators using secret holds and such to stop Republican
tax plans that benefit corporations and the wealthy.
Okay, now that I've stopped laughing, I'll correct this. I'm assuming BERNIE will use holds
and such to stop this stuff. But it will be entertaining to watch the Democrats explain why the
Republican can top from the bottom, but they never can.
@aab – "This also would kill TISA, right? Is it technically contingent on TPP passing first?"
I don't think TISA depends on TPP being passed. As I understand it, they are being negotiated
separately.
One particular provision of TISA is as bad as anything in TPP (bar ISDS) and that is the
prohibition on remunicipalization of privatized public resources. Governments would not be allowed
to take back things such as British Rail that have been sold off to the private sector, and would
be prohibited from nationalizing any other public good now in private hands. It's another hit
to national sovereignty.
You are right, indeed. I just think DT is getting more "benefit of the doubt" than is warranted,
given what I know of his past, and the sources he apparently uses, and the advisors he surrounds
with.
HRC, you knew from the beginning, who she was tied to/advised by/paid for by. She is a
"known known". We are all seeking to know what or who DT represents, as he is harder to pin down.
HRC and Bill are the most successful organized crime outfit since Wall St., and that
is enough to categorize them, even without the obvious foreign policy horrors .
How are we gonna survive 4 years with either of them at the helm?
That was my take exactly. Since I don't honestly think Stein is going to win, and I think
Johnson might be worse than either of these, I was hoping one of them would give me a reason to
feel optimistic that they would do a decent job. They … both failed horribly.
And what is up with all the people on NBC and now in my twitter feed repeating this mantra
that "We had high expectations for Hillary, and she exceeded them!"
What universe are they living in? Half of these people used to be Bernie supporters. Are
people that easily manipulated? Did I used to be that easily manipulated? Or have I gone completely
insane now. This was some kind of masterful performance? She mouthed a lot of decent sounding
platitudes with no specifics re: policy (while everyone praises her for specifics, and I think
she championed the ideas of specifics themselves) while doing a decent but not great job of hitting
Trump on some areas where he's very vulnerable.
He did a great job finding areas where she's vulnerable, but a terrible job of hitting
her on them.
She did a better job of finishing her sentences, but … wow. That was the bar for coherence
and specificity here.
Meanwhile, my twitter feed is full of people who think one or the other landed telling blows.
The pundits all think she was terrif. His partisans seem to think he did well.
He looked like he was posing half the time. I don't even know what to say about her expressions.
I hate when people talk about stuff like that but what else is there to say here?
My SO and I were constantly covering our eyes and putting our heads down and occasionally laughing
at each others expressions and occasionally laughing so hard we had tears running down our eyes
at what (both) the candidates were saying. Now it's over I just want to cry.
I know a lot of people here are not fans of the Green Party, but hate on Jill all you want,
she would have almost certainly been better up there tonight than either of these people. It would
have been hard to be worse.
"Are people that easily manipulated?" Yes. Was I that easily manipulated? Probably. Don't
feel bad though most of us were naïve enough to believe the BS for at least some period of time.
This was some kind of masterful performance?
Uh it's scripted reality TV. The "debates" are vetted and agreed upon by the two parties
who sponsored the darn thing via their little pretend front group. Anyone, at this point, who
thinks these things matter is fooling themselves. It's a 90 minute infomercial, so if you find
infomercials masterful then I guess.
Personally, I'm boycotting these things until they actually allow ALL the candidates that qualify
for the ballot on stage.
Thank you for pointing out that as usual, the unconstitutional and illegitimate two-party
duopoly has excluded other candidates who will be on the ballot. Who exactly gave them this privilege
of exclusion?
Trump can go off on 5 tangents in each sentence. I keep waiting for him to make his damn point,
already. It all comes off as gibberish. I cannot wait for a verbatim transcript of this cluster****.
It will be largely incomprehensible. As for "HER", I aint with her either. We are screwwwed.
It was like that in the Republican debates for anyone who bothered to read the transcripts.
Trump was incoherent, the other candidates were basically coherent (wrong, liars and horrible
many of them, but able to form a coherent sentence. Trump stood out).
I disagree strongly that Trump is incoherent;
I saw him in Bangor. What he is, is discursive and improvisational. He has his main points
that he always circles back to, but he riffs and reacts to the crowd.
However, that style doesn't work for him in this debate. He doesn't get to determine the
structure, there's no time in a two minute answer to do the kind of excursions he likes to do,
and the crowd was told not to react.
The format works very much against Trump, and very much for Clinton. Delivering bullet
points successfully is a marker that a candidate is president-y. Considering what PowerPoint has
done to the Pentagon, that might not be such a great idea, but it is what it is and we are where
we are.
Prediction markets are saying she killed him. I would look to see the results of multiple online
polls. Both Hillary and Trump fans will be trying to game them but it will be hard to skew results
across the entire web.
Dunno with Rs, but the online polls showed Sanders to be a winner in debates where the MSM
called him a loser, and Sanders continued gains in later, conventional polls v. Clinton seemed
way more in line with the online polls than MSM takes.
I'm surprised that no one mentioned the one best line to the non political junkie. They
HATE political commercials. He nailed her on spending Millions attacking him and he came across
gentlemanly saying he wouldn't / hasn't done that to her.
All I can think after I watched this is that I could have dismembered, dissected, discombobulated,
and reduced Hillary not only to cells, not just to molecules, but to quarks.
looking at it, I just can't see how anybody could think Trump is actually very smart, or smart,
or much above ANY New York cabbie…or any or those horses in central park….or the south end of
any of those horses….
Honestly, I've seen 5 years olds who could resist the bait better than Trump…
I don't know why this is surprising, Trump is the narcissist he is regardless of what people
want to project on him. Of course none of that makes Clinton any better.
Whether it's effective, eh who knows, if it's authoritarians voting for him maybe that is what
they like, but I don't think there are enough of them for him to win on that alone. If people
are just casting random angry votes for anything but the status quo then maybe.
I disagree. I think both candidates are isolated within elite bubbles, leading to behaviors
we consider narcissistic (armchair diagnosis, when you think about it. I mean, "I'm with her….")
I watched the debate on CSPAN, where a split screen was used that showed the candidates at
all times…
….Did anyone else notice how consistently Hillary looked down at the podium? I believe
she was being fed "Cliff Notes" ON AN IPAD by her staff re every topic that was bought up….she
was ALWAYS looking down and, I assume she was being fed CUES AND WORDS OR PHRASES that she should
use….she not only looked down a lot before the time she was supposed to speak but also looked
down a lot during her responses……
OTOH, Trump was "winging it" and "shooting from the hip"…..Hillary won because the notes
kept her on track….If trump had done any serious prep and could take advice, he could have destroyed
her…But, he doesn't do prep, so he can't effectively respond…….
She was told to smile when he attacked….she did this……this response aggravated me, but didn't
hurt her with the public of "Undecideds"
He was told to refrain from interrupting…he did an excellent job of interjecting comments at
the beginning, but lost control as the night wore on…..
Lester was about the worst Moderator I have listened/watched/prayed for during a Debate…..of
course, the job is "thankless"
Hillary's closing comments were stronger, but by then I don't think their were many left
watching who were "Persuadables"….those of us left were "political junkies" hoping for a last
lap NASCAR worthy Candidate Crash…..
I think Trump had the opportunity to win the debate handed to him on a silver platter by
Hillary, but his failure to Prepare and Do the Little Things that would have helped him be ready
for her totally expected responses/statements/stalking points cost him dearly…..
He remains the Rich Guy, who does what he wants….. She remains the Robotic Gal, who will
probably get what she wants….
Yes she was looking down a lot. Were they allowed to have iPads to look at?
I felt she was listening a lot–she had that look some newscasters have when their
producers are telling them updated news or giving suggestions through an ear device. Could she
have been wired up? Are there rules about this?
I think one of the CBS commentators said that Hillary appeared to be using notes. She did
look down a lot, and I also thought she seemed unusually subdued. At times she appeared to look
sleepy and bored. I don't think this "debate" changed anyone's mind. I think Trump was trying
to "dial it back", and he did miss several opportunities to zing Clinton. It did confirm one thing
for me – we're all screwed.
I don't think in the great scheme of things this matters much. If there was an iPad and
it worked for Clinton, then why the heck didn't the Trump team give their guy an equivalent advantage?
(If true, this shows the dangers of an overly lean campaign team.)
Two impressions, on the bus where I could just hear them, it was pretty equal. Both spouted
nonsense and both had decent points regarding the other. Home where I had visuals, before I switched,
she looked relaxed and yes healthy. She even appeared amused by him.He was flustered and floundering.
There were at least two opportunities where he could have landed blows on her policies which he
lost by being defensive. His judgment is better than her's, but that is an incredibly low bar.
Based on 2, she won.
Based on the nonsense they both reeled off the biggest loser tonight, election day and the
future are the American people either way.
J-Yel must be shocked that Trump ripped her early on. The earnest bureaucrats at the Fed are
not used to being fodder for campaign criticism.
Trump went on to call today's economy a "big fat Bubble." (I call it Bubble III.) He implied
that one rate hike will be the pin that pops it, and he's probably right.
Knowing this does not mean he can do anything about it. Currently J-Yel plans to hike in December
during the interregnum, when the US political system is inert and the MSM is all focused on cabinet
picks.
Almost certainly, the next president will have a close-up, personal encounter with a harsh
recession. The only advice from pros is "get it behind you early." That's why I have it penciled
in for 2017-18.
That's what the hotel people think (see yesterday's water cooler). Hotel bookings being a fine
indicator of the animal spirits of the managing and investing classes. Whether they are a leading
indicator remains to be seen….
And in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted cheap credit to finance the Vietnam
War and his Great Society, summoned Fed chairman William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch.
There, after asking other officials to leave the room, Johnson reportedly shoved Martin against
the wall as he demanding that the Fed once again hold down interest rates. Martin caved, the
Fed printed money, and inflation kept climbing until the early 1980s.
Ironic that in this post-democratic world I watched my first political debate ever. Give
the credit to the great entertainer: Donald Trump. Problem was: he wasn't the least bit entertaining
tonight. I thought Clinton did well, however she is playing a losing hand. Trump is on the right
side of all the issues that matter. Unfortunately(for everyone) the only reality Clinton and the
entire western political establishment cares about is how many of the 1% will pay $500 a plate
for a dinner and a speech.
Regarding tonight's shenanagans, I thought Lester Holt was the winner. A good moderator should
be virtually invisible, let the candidates do their thing. Clinton scored her debating points
but I'm not convinced that won her any votes. Was Trump performing in a strait jacket? Seemed
like he was more worried about appearing reserved and presidential. And holy repetitive! I was
looking forward to Tyson-Spinks, instead I got Tyson-Douglas! Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it
all worked and Trump comes out ahead in the polls. He certainly didn't look scary tonight. Boring
yes, however doesn't boring deflate these ideas that he's an out of control amateur who can't
be trusted?
Bottom line is, all Murica could do was cough up these two turds. Yeah, deliberately mixed
metaphor. Main difference is, if Trump gets elected it will certify Murica before the whole world
as a country full of arseholes who've finally got to elect their very own Arsehole in Chief.
One point made by a friend of the blog: Neither candidate appealed to anyone other than
their base. And it's hard to see why anyone undecided would be moved. It's even harder to see
why a voter committed to Johnson or Stein would move.
Therefore, we would not expect the polls to move. And what matters is a tiny population of
voters in swing counties in swing states (not national polls), which data is not available to
us.
Of course, since the political class is all in for Clinton, they will portray it as an overwhelming
win for Clinton (as did I, since I am a 10%-er manqué ). However, exactly as with TV
advertising, the pronouncements of the political class have had greatly diminished returns this
year….
I'll be interested what old-school people like Nooners have to say….
I don't see them as playing only to their respective bases - it seems like they also were trying
to affect overarching narratives. Clinton's case against Trump is that he's monstrous. I think
he cut against that indictment tonight (and it wasn't a foregone conclusion that he would). Trump's
case against Clinton is that she's a corrupt and dishonest version of politics as usual, which
already is corrupt and dishonest. I don't know whether she moved the dial on that. Apart from
immediate reactions, wonder if there will be any shifts.
Watched the whole thing. Trump missed a good opportunity to respond to Hillary's comment
that trickle down was the reason for the financial crisis. Trump could have spoken up and said
it was Goldman Sachs and big banks that played the key role in bringing on the financial crisis
– which would have lead many to think again about her speeches at GS. Outside of the fact that
Hillary's comment made me super confused – and maybe Trump as well – it would have been great
if he could have mentioned the banks and what did she promise the big banks during her speeches.
Very good point on Goldman. In a way, it seems that Clinton threw the kitchen sink on Trump
(her assault on his business dealings, using the income tax thing as a hook, was prepared but
highly effective). But Trump didn't throw the kitchen sink back at her. Odd.
Voting has already started. I don't see any benefit to going soft on her. He relied on free
media in the primary, and he has much less money than she does. If he's serious about winning,
this was an important opportunity that he apparently blew. The next one isn't even a pseudo-debate,
is it? I read today it's a Town Hall - i.e., completely useless. Actually less than useless; it
should be a very poor format for him, and a very protected format for her.
By the time they get to the next direct confrontation, a lot of votes will have been banked.
i'm starting to try to mentally prepare myself for a clinton win. or steal, or whatever. "i
survived reagan, i didn't totally lose it during the time of the chimp, i can do this. happy thoughts".
I can't. I'm too afraid of her. I can picture surviving Trump. But Clinton really scares me.
I have a draft age child; that's a not insignificant element. That plus TPP.
@aab – I feel your pain about your kid and the draft. I was in the first draft lottery in 1969
and came out with #27. Fortunately, I was able to avoid being drafted due to it being suspended
for the first 90 days of 1972 because they had enough soldiers and were beginning to draw down
the forces in Viet Nam.
I was wondering if he's holding the GS speech transcripts in reserve? I was hoping for
more of a pounding. I wonder if his team will do polling to determine how hard-hitting he can
go before it gets too negative? The history of Glass-Steagall repeal is pretty damning. I'm also
hoping to hear her defence of her cattle futures trading, but perhaps that is too ancient of history?
Also, was interesting wrt his usage of the word "secretary" - a la Scott Adams, I suspect
he's hoping the average viewer will subconsciously associate Hillary with the office secretary,
rather than Secretary of State.
Old news (from May), but sad to see the "fact checkers" on the
birther
origins …
Before I forget, Trump was very strong on trade, early. Nailed Clinton on NAFTA, nailed
her on TPP. Fits right in with "you've had 30 years," but (B team, not top tier school) he didn't
keep hammering that point. An early win (on the theory that debates are won early) but for me
overshadowed by the rest of it).
Absolutely. If it had been a 35 minute debate, Trump would have won hands down. Of course,
the minute they moved to taxes, the incoherence of Trump's economic policy becomes apparent.
Among others, 3 mistakes by Trump that a seasoned politician wouldn't have made. First,
Clinton accuses him of not paying maids, contractors, architects, etc. and Trump basically agrees.
He doesn't dispute this, instead says "maybe they didn't do the work." In a time of economic stagnation,
this was a miss. (A seasoned politician would have just lied and said "not true.") Second, the
tax stuff where Clinton outlines possible reasons he isn't releasing and he didn't do the simple
thing and say "none of those are true." Instead, maybe not paying taxes is a "smart thing." Third,
Trump can't even do the short work to memorize a story tying the creation of ISIS to Clinton's
interventionism (and thus refugee crisis). Instead he bloviates about the Iran deal that very
few Americans know enough about to judge good or bad.
Trump's team needs to slap some sense into him (if that's possible and he can listen). So many
winning arguments left on the table (and ripe for Trump's simple language, too).
Upon a second watch of the debate (ok, I'm crazy), he actually does make the point about the
creation of ISIS. Unfortunately, his rhetoric ends on "we should have taken the oil." So he doesn't
distinguish the story as the failure of Obama/Clinton foreign policy as a policy of interventionism
. His argument is that interventionism must pay out in some way.
Trump didn't help himself by claiming earlier that Clinton has been fighting ISIS her whole
life. That obvious gaffe makes it hard to hear anything he says later in the debate.
I'm in agreement with Corey Robin - Trump is not a master communicator. Pace Scott
Adams.
Also, it's not nice that Hillary buys negative ads
Not having watched one second of this "debate," I think it's important to note that there
are many different kinds of communication. As far as I can tell, Trump's a decent salesman. That's
a very specific type of communication, that specifically is NOT about delivering information or
or enhancing understanding. It's about establishing control of your target and leading them to
do/buy what you want them to do/buy. It doesn't sound like he figured out a way to make this very
different situation work for him, the way he apparently did the very different Republican debates.
Note that I'm not claiming he IS a master communicator. I don't think either of them are.
So many people are saying she was obviously looking down a lot and reading from notes or possibly
an iPad. If so, why wouldn't he call her out on it?
Trump is giving mixed messages - that's his communication failure. We're supposed to be
disgusted by Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but it's never clear why. Because the policy is failed
at the start - intervening in Middle Eastern affairs is foolish? Or, we should be intervening
for the sake of American power? Trump never articulates a policy goal either way. This is the
empty rhetoric of "America first." He never argues a long term strategy of foreign policy for
America or the world at large .
NATO is just a tool. For what? Not clear.
If you think, well: America shouldn't be articulating a strategy for global politics. Fine.
I'm happy to listen, but so far, Trump hasn't even made this idea coherent.
Bear in mind, I didn't watch tonight. I'm not an expert on Trump. But I'm so sick of all this
discourse around "intelligence" and "communication" that defines both concepts in extremely limited
and fundamentally false ways that align with the proclivities of those in the position to do the
defining. I don't consider Hillary Clinton very smart. Her complete lack of morals and empathy
are a far more significant factor in her success than her intelligence. Trump seems fairly bright
in some ways, and he's certainly good at understanding certain kinds of non-verbal communication.
(For example, all that gold that seems so vulgar to one audience is very appealing to another.)
Beyond that, I have no strong opinion about him in this regard. Do I think he's a sizzling intellect?
No.
Again, salesmanship has nothing to do with messaging per se. In fact, one sales technique
would be to using contradictory messaging at differing points in the sales path, to confuse the
target. Salesmanship is about control and manipulation.
Persuasion is a different process, where messaging, as the term is generally used, matters.
I would have liked him to take her out tonight. But beyond the strategic goal of keeping her
out of power, I don't know whether I'd prefer a smart and/or disciplined Trump over a less smart,
less disciplined one. I'd like him to be smart enough not to be a stooge for the existing "bipartisan"
elite, since merely resisting their desires and goals seems like it would good for the rest of
us. But it's possible (probable?) he means all or part of that noxious traditional Republican
swill he's offering up. In which case, being less smart and less disciplined might be better in
terms of him acting as an obstacle to business as usual - as long as he's stubborn.
I'm basically with Lambert: the best we can hope for is gridlock. But since Clinton is
running as an efficient, bloodthirsty Republican, and what she really wants to do is wage war,
which requires no Congressional action, Trump's the better bet for gridlock, even with a Republican
majority. We'll get Democrats forced to playact the role of "Democrat;" it's something.
That's why I focus mostly on the structural stuff. We know what Clinton is and will do,
and it's horrendous. That's why throwing the Trump spanner into the works is worth doing. I would
love for him to govern way to the left of how he ran, just as Obama governed way to the right
of how he ran. But there really aren't a lot of incentives for Trump to do that, unlike for Obama.
I'm not naive enough to count on Trump's human decency, although I do get the impression he may
have a sliver of it, unlike both Obama and Clinton. But I also think he's sincerely racist. If
Clinton wasn't such a profound and effectively violent racist, Trump's racism would really give
me pause.
Anyway, my key point is that doing very badly in the format and conditions of tonight's event
does not prove he is a bad communicator in some overarching sense.
Now that's what I call talent. But as one of them is going to be President, I just want to
point out the one thing worth noting she said all night.
Clinton doesn't have her thumbs on the button yet she's just threatened Russia with a cyber-war
in retaliation for purported Russian attacks on the DNC etc., 'hacks' for which there is less
proof than there is an interest on Clinton's part in changing the channel away from what the 'hacks'
revealed about her own nefarious doings. So, in retaliation for something that may not have happened
at all Clinton's instinct is to hit what could well be the wrong guy because it suits her personal
interest – more egregious still, in this instance the wrong guy happens to be engaged in an existential
struggle for independent, sovereign survival on the same planet as the US Empire and quite desperately
needs an American leader of calibre.
I know it's hard to look past the enormous frozen smile, still, close your eyes and try to
remember the look in her eyes, the downward cut of her mouth and clamped jaw when Trump briefly
brushed past a sore spot – that person in there, that is the person who will be the next Leader
of The Free World, that is to say, the woman who will lead the revolution of the globalists over
the tyranny of nations. The effort to re-assert US hegemony will prove calamitous.
It does seem to me that the voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Russia hacked
into the DNC can easily become the same voice that can proclaim with little evidence that Iraq
has WMDs (that is the modern version of that for the enemy du jour of course).
That's actually brilliant, and the fact he didn't/hasn't so far supports my thesis – so don't
expect him to try it. Trump doesn't want to win – what he wants is to lose without being a 'loser'.
It's been evident for a long time now.
If he'd wanted to win he could've sat down with any high school coach to map out a strategy
and a set of talking points that would not just defeat Clinton, but quite possibly send a bunch
of people to jail. That's why it's Trump (or could've been Cruz). You could not draw a more perfect
stereo-typically encumbered character beside which to contrast Clinton, whose entire public career
persona has been premised on 'breaking down' same – even if her husband did send a million poor,
mostly young black Americans away to rot in fantastically lucrative private prisons working for
slave wages.
I suspect if he wanted to win he would spend on advertising, just saying. It may or may not
pan out, but why not make use of things that might help him win if winning was what he wanted?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-special-1474910731
Trump doesn't have to play that "arrest the banker" card to win, and there are plenty of reasons
why he would not, including he wants to stay alive. Plus, there's selling and then there's giving
away.
If he wanted to loose and yet come out a winner, then I'd expect him to take the high ground
or stake a claim in a way that would allow him to claim the vote was rigged. Not seeing that at
all.
The critical issue is, we're undecideds moved?
How about this blog? By definition, undecideds don't much like either… Pretty much like NC. So
who here is now decided? And which way?
Personally, I'm not sure laziness is a disqualifying characteristic in a Presidential candidate.
If a machine is so broken that all its outputs are bad, then it behooves one to turn the crank
more slowly than faster.
Just finished watching. She cleaned his clock, and I wanted to see him prevail. The exchange
early in the debate about Trump not paying people … that really came back to mind when he started
talking about how the countries we support don't pay their fair share. Really hypocritical. Bad
night for DT; he will be hopping mad, kind of like after that trip to Mexico. I wonder what his
reaction will be in next day or two.
I think Adams is prone to tunnel vision – focusing on one thing he especially likes or dislikes
– as exemplified by his recent switch in endorsement from Hillary ("for my safety, as I live in
CA") to Trump, based on Hillary's endorsement (hard to tell if genuine or mere triangulation)
of the estate tax.
In tonight's case, I suspect any points Trump may have won for the statement Adams focuses
on were more than negated by his stop-and-frisk inanity, but being white like Adams, I can't claim
to speak for the AA community in any way.
On a separate-but-related note, my sister – who strongly supported Bernie during the primaries
– does seem to fit Adam's claim that subjective impressions rule, and we humans busily construct
rational-sounding narratives to justify our gut takes. In her case, she appears to have been as
off-put by Hillary's Martin-Shkreli-esque smug smirking as Yves was:
I watched almost all of it and thought he did pretty well, in fact i thought he totally trounced
her in many areas. I'm shocked to see every single mainstream media outlet say she was the clear
winner and he was the total loser and unprepared. She was smug and ingenuous [sic – she clearly
meant 'dis'-], can't stand her.
Sanders supporters are not representative of anything other than Sanders supporters…but they
do constitute a decent chuck of Dem voters and bigger chunk of independents. The ones who were
paying attention were painfully of the MSM misrepresentations re Sanders, the DNC putting its
finger on the scale (confirmed only by Wikileaks), Clinton campaign totally bogus attacks (BernieBros,
when he had more female millennial supporters than male AND Clinton supporters were more aggressive
in social media than Sanders supporters), and the rampant cheating in NY and even worse in CA.
So there is a burning resentment of Clinton in many Sanders voters looking for continued proof
of Clinton's dishonesty and bad character.
Having said all that, a contact who is a "pox on both their houses" type said the comments
re Clinton's smugness were widespread. The question is then how big a demerit that is to different
voters.
This was a pathetic performance all around. Hillary looked like a polished turd in the
debate, compared to Trump who came off as an unpolished turd. My feeling is that Hillary was the
"winner" though that word doesn't seem suitable.
I will preface this by saying that substance and issues are completely irrelevant now. If you
are someone who cares about that stuff then you're out of luck this time around.
1) All the people who already like Trump thought he was great, while everyone who hates him
will stick with Hillary. Independents, I don't know. I can't imagine that people are going to
be motivated to do much of anything either way after that.
2) Trump had multiple opputinites to destroy Hillary and end the race but passed them all up.
The consequence is that this will continue dragging out. Hillary did about as well as she could
have considering how compromised she is; she is lucky that Trump is was so unprepared.
3) Trump had shown an ability to learn from his mistakes. I want to believe that he will immediately
start doing preparation for the next debate rather than blowing this off. If he fails to, whether
or not he can win will be in doubt.
4) As someone else mentioned the one thing of actual import said tonight was by Hillary: she
reiterated that she wants to get belligerent with Russia over these these cyber attacks, even
though there is zero evidence of Russian involvement in them. This is a reaffirmation of of why
Hillary scares the crap out of me, and the reason she is unfit to be president.
5) We know something more about Trump's character now: He's a smart, lazy, loudmouthed braggart
who relies on his very good intuition and people skills decide things. He wings everything because
he can't be bothered to study anything too deeply. Hillary? She is a very well scripted psychopath
with bad people skills. And she enjoys war. Lots and lots of war.
6) I'm going to call this debate a wash even if it was slightly in Hillary's favor. Trump is
still on a trajectory to win, he's just going to have to put in actual effort accomplish that–which
he should realize now.
7) We are screwed no matter who is president in 2017, but simply as a matter of survival we
have to support Trump.
8) surprisingly Hillary didn't keel over tonight. This is both good and bad. Good for Trump
because Hillary is someone he's likely to win against, bad for us because there is still a slight
chance that Hillary could win, meaning that war war and more war, including nuclear war, could
be on the agenda from 2017 on. I don't believe we'll survive that.
Trump is talking about problems… Hillary is talking about solutions. Voters always want
to hear solutions.
#DebateNight
- Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz)
September
27, 2016
So Clinton stole Trump's clothes on law and order (which she would do; "super-predators,"
for-profit prisons).
Yes she jabbed him to death, while Trump held his punches. The question is: why? Having
already done the Foreman trick of KOing five guys in one night, was he guarding against punching
himself out? Seeing he's already won debates with aggression, was he trying to win by playing
defense? Am I simply reading into it what I want to – spinning for Trump to excuse a mediocre
performance?
I guess all politicians and non-politicians have their limitations. Trump's talent is he's
a salesman and what he sells is himself. He's not an intellectual. He's likely not even a thoughtful
person. What amused me most tonight was his egotism. Compared to Trump, if Narcissus looked at
his reflection he'd be filled with self loathing.
"Personally, I came out of this feeling more sympathetic to Trump as a person, believe it or
not. I think he genuinely sees the infrastructural decay and it frosts him. Same with "you had
30 years to solve it." Undeniably true; Clinton's whole "let's build on our success" schtick is
such a steaming lot of 10%-er-ness. But if Trump wants to make this election a referendum on the
political class, he's going to have to do a lot better than this. If you regard success in the
debate as emitting presidential markers (like NATO Article 5), then Clinton unquestionably won."
Well said and thanks for doing this, Lambert. I went to bed right after the debate so it's
great to get a recap with this excellent comment thread. I watched on C-Span and after the debate
the candidates went down to the foot of the stage and it seemed that apart from family no one
wanted to shake Trump's hand. The whole crowd was around Clinton. Trump and his family just looked
at each other and headed for the exit. It was weird and sad.
Did Trump suffer a mini-stroke on stage? After slurring a word, he began to answer questions
for a while with incoherent, freely associated chains of slogans and phrases. This, about the
time he blurted out about Hillary's stamina–, psychological projection perhaps? Then he began
to list to his left and lean pronouncedly on his podium. After the debate, he left the hall rather
too promptly. Was the elderly Trump physically fit enough to withstand a one-on-one 90 minute
debate?
"... The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands. ..."
"... Clinton will have few opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. ..."
"... It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says, but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably good approval rating ..."
"... That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism. The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. ..."
"... Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather considers it "smart power at its best." ..."
Stephen Walt
isn't persuaded that Hillary Clinton will be as hawkish a president as her record suggests:
If Clinton goes overboard with more globalization, expanded U.S. security guarantees, open-ended
nation-building in distant lands, or even expensive acts of international philanthropy, all those
skeptical people beguiled by Trump or Sanders will be even angrier. By contrast, if she can win
over some of the people during her first term, her popularity will soar and re-election would
be easy. The lesson? Clinton should focus on domestic reforms and not on international crusades.
And as former State Department officials Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky suggest, that's been
her basic inclination all along.
Clinton would be unwise to pursue an even more activist and militarized foreign policy
agenda as president, but Walt and I agree about this because we generally view that sort of foreign
policy as dangerous and contrary to American interests anyway. It does seem foolish for any president
to want to do the things that Clinton thinks the U.S. should do, but that is not a reason to think
it won't happen. I have made my objections to Shapiro and Sokolsky's piece
before , so I won't repeat all of them here, but there are at least four major reasons why we
should assume that Clinton's foreign policy will be even more hawkish and interventionist than Obama's
.
The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at
the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed
more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are
usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because
she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands.
The
second is that Clinton won't be able to "focus on domestic reforms" alone because foreign events
and her public enthusiasm for U.S. "leadership" won't allow her to do that. There will probably be
a new civil war or international crisis at some point over the next four years, and she will feel
compelled to be seen doing something about it, and given her record that will almost certainly mean
deeper U.S. involvement than most Americans would prefer.
The third is that Clinton will have few
opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even
if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will
be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. The one area where Congress is totally submissive to
the executive is foreign policy, and that is what Clinton will spend a disproportionate amount of
her time on because she will mostly be stymied at home. Clinton won't be hemmed in by budgetary concerns.
The other party has been insisting for years that we must throw more money at the Pentagon, and there
is no reason to think that Clinton worries about paying for this through borrowing. Finally, Clinton
will be inheriting at least two ongoing wars, one of which she will be under significant pressure
to escalate, and she will also inherit the Obama administration's horrible enabling of the Saudi-led
war on Yemen. In that sense, it won't be entirely up to Clinton how much time these matters take
up in her first term, because she is already committed to continuing these missions for the foreseeable
future.
It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says,
but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over
eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued
illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably
good approval rating and (if this scenario is to be believed) about to be succeeded as president
by a member of his own party.
That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism.
The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few
foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. So we should expect
Clinton to rely heavily on air wars and missile strikes as Obama and her husband did. There presumably
won't be a repeat of something on the scale of Iraq, but we should assume that there will be other
Libya-like interventions and some of them will be in places that we're not even thinking about at
the moment.
Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather
considers it "smart power at its best." I'm fairly sure about all this because Clinton has never
given us any reason to think that she doesn't want to govern this way, and almost everything in her
foreign policy record says that this is how she will govern.
While the Press celebrates the Democratic Party victory of the first female billionaire in history,
a somber legal battle is going on in the shadows.
The State Department report on Hillary Clinton's emails, and the different legal proceedings which
followed, establish that she is guilty of :
Obstruction of Justice by Mrs. Clinton and her advisors (Section 1410) ;
Obstruction of Criminal Enquiries (Section 1511) ;
Obstruction of the application of local and Federal laws (Section 1411) ;
Federal crime of negligence with classified information and documents (Section 1924) ;
Detention in her computer, at home and on a non-secure server, of 1,200 secret documents (Section
1924)
Felony – Mrs. Clinton declared under oath to a Federal judge that she had given all her emails
to the State Department. However, the Inspector General of the State Department declared this
week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
Moreover, she declared under oath that the State Department had authorised her to use her
personal computer to work at home. The Inspector General of the State Department declared this
week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
Mrs. Clinton did not alert the authorities, nor even her own Department, that her personal
computer had been hacked several times. Yet she had asked her system administrator to try to protect
her computer.
Misappropriation and Concealment. The Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton were corrupted so
that the State Department would close their eyes to various practices (Rico Law and Section 1503).
In principle, and since the facts and their gravity have been established by the FBI, the State
Departement, and a Federal judge, Hillary Clinton should have been arrested this week.
Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic nomination, was counting on Mrs. Clinton's
arrest before their party's convention. He therefore decided to stay in the running, although he
does not have enough delegates. But he was summoned to the White House, and informed that President
Barack Obama would prevent his administration from applying the law. Obama then followed through
by publicly announcing his support for the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton.
Springsteen, who has dramatised the plight of working-class Americans in his music, said he
understands how Trump could seem "compelling" to people who are economically insecure.
"The
absurdity is beyond cartoon-like. But he's gotten close enough [to the White House] so it can
make you nervous," he told the talk show Skavlan.
"I don't think he's going to win, but even him running is a great embarrassment if you're
an American," he said.
Trump knows how to tell voters "some of the things they want to hear," he added, including
to people "uncomfortable with the 'browning' of America."
"We have certain problems in the United States – tremendous inequality of wealth
distribution. That makes for ripe ground for demagoguery," Springsteen said.
"He has a very simple answer to all these very, very complex problems."
Springsteen recorded the interview with the talk show ahead of next week's release of his
memoir, Born to Run, which describes his childhood in New Jersey and rise to fame.
The singer, famous for his onstage stamina, has drawn a diverse field of devoted fans for
decades, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie, one of Trump's most public backers.
Springsteen insisted for years that he would let his music speak for him but has been more
openly political since the election in 2004, when he campaigned for John Kerry in his
unsuccessful bid to win the White House from George W Bush.
One hit wonder boy who climbed to fame on the back of his jingoistic melody 'Born in the
USA.' What he knows about politics could be written on a stamp!
I don't know too about Hilary being the ebb and flow of this countrys future. She outspent
Trump 3 to 1. She spent a wooping 360 million dollars on this campaign alone. The
Libertarian party also spent it up up to 7 million for their parties choice of President.
Some are saying that Hilary is not so popular with the vulture class. Those who feel
that her 300,000 a plate dinners to raise huge wads of cash could be spent on the poor.
1. Springsteen is eminently qualified to comment on being in a moronic state. (Huh?)
2. The issue doesn't revolve around the candidates' intelligence , but rather the ability
to make sound, timely and balanced judgments on many things with which you may or may not
have requisite familiarity. THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITH COURAGE and sometimes almost
instantly.
3. Then, there is there are the issues of Trust, Honesty, Openness and the SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES.
But, then, I'm a Yank. (I hold 2 MBA's, I'm a Senior, a former executive with a major
international corporation, a father and grandfather, and a Veteran.), so what do I know?
against Sanders (who gave up far too soon) neither Hillary nor Trump would have a chance.
But the DNC, in its corrupt establishment wisdom, cf. Mme Wassermann-Schultz... undermined
his fair chances of raising real questions of why America is slipping economically,
socially, morally.
Who of the two is going to be less destructive for the US and the world ?
Well , I am not ready to say the lady is.
A professional politician and a non professional one. By the look of what the present has
to offer, I would be inclined to go for the non professional.
Goldman Sachs made Hillary's tie? Does she even wear a tie?
===============
$675,000.00 says Goldman Sachs has her tied around their chubby greedy finger.
Springsteen and Trump are alike in that they are both cowards when it came time for them to
do their duty in Vietnam. Springsteen told his draft board he was homosexual (funny he
hasn't been acting homosexual), whereas Trump got deferments for heel spurs. Dick Cheny is
like Springsteen and Trump as well in this regard.
I thought you Americans had finally decided that the Vietnam campaign was a bad error of
political judgement. Nothing cowardly about saying "no" to a draft that included, inter
alia, carpet bombing of innocents and applications of agent orange where the fall out is
still happening.
"... Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton, against the reserve of the establishment , racist billionaire Donald Trump. ..."
"... She knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump. ..."
"... It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known. ..."
...Tonight's first US presidential debate involves two candidates who actually depict emphatically
the high degree of the US politics degeneration: deeply pro-establishment, war-thirsty Hillary Clinton,
against the
reserve of the establishment, racist billionaire Donald Trump.
No matter how they act, no matter what they say and what rhetoric they use, they can both be identified,
more or less, by the few characteristics above. It would be rather pointless for someone to expect
anything better from both.
As we approach the day of the US elections, time is running out and the two candidates will naturally
focus on one thing: fix their picture to attract more voters and increase their chances to win. As
polls show that it will be a tight race, the two will try to attract as many voters as possible from
the huge tank of undecided US citizens.
Hillary took a good taste from the fight for the Democratic nomination against Bernie Sanders.
She will probably try to retain a more progressive profile which was forced to exhibit during the
race against Bernie, in order to gain voters from the tank of the mass movement he created. She
knows that these voters, and especially the American youth, had enough of the neoliberal establishment
in previous years, and therefore, it would be very hard to be persuaded that the warmongering Hillary
has been "relocated" further to the Left. There is no need to expose her absolute commitment to conduct
more dirty wars because the US deep state and the neocons know very well that she will focus on this
policy, in case that she will be the next US president. Furthermore, it seems that she does not expect
anything from the most conservative voters to the Right, who are clearly determined to support Trump.
Trump has also a difficult job. He has to find a balance between the highly conservative audience,
which is the core of his voters, and the more moderate, undecided ones, who may determine the outcome
of the elections. Therefore, he is expected to smooth his extremely patriotic (to the point that
becomes racist) rhetoric, in order to
become "more presidential", as actually warned recently by the establishment. He
knows that he can't win without taking a crucial percentage of the more moderate tank.
It appears that after Sanders, the US voters are left with zero options, again. Yet, they
do have options which the corporate media don't want to become known.
"... My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate. ..."
"... Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts ..."
"... The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. ..."
"... Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. ..."
"... Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking. ..."
"... Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November. ..."
"... Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests. ..."
"... The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed. ..."
"... The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war. ..."
"... Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery. ..."
"... She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected ..."
"... If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation. ..."
"... I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful. My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use. ..."
"... You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students. ..."
"... Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ..."
"... The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less. ..."
"... People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance. ..."
"... In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening. ..."
"... Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate! ..."
"... I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people. ..."
From the first reactions I see the show made no difference to the outcome of the U.S. election. Both
sides spin that their paymasters won.
My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude
in the general U.S. electorate.
Would that be good or bad? I don't know. Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly
knows some very selective facts . Her general plans can be inferred from her political history.
They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters. Nobody
seems to know what his real plans would be. With him we all are in for a lot of surprises - likely
bad ones.
From a global perspective the election again shows why U.S. global influences must be cut to size.
The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some
Intellectuals
but Idiots , to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history
starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life,
their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world. This needs to change.
Such a change requires some cataclysmic events. Both candidates seem well positioned to achieve
such.
"Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general
plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump
doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters."
Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty
decent.. All and all it was cringworthy but entertaining. I think I'll be writing Harambe instead
of voting for these 2
Trump also kept pimping his business.. He clearly wants to advertise! Both went after each others
shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least
enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking.
Missed the 'debate'. In the USA the Amalgamated Republicrat/Demoblican Party controls the debates
and limits participation in them to themselves ... the Republicrat and Demoblican candidates.
Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans
that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November.
I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two, ideally
that both of these trail the aggregate vote cast for candidates other than themselves. That's
the cataclysmic event I'd like to see happen.
These people and this system depend entirely on power that we the people give them. Spending energy
on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes
the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my
local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests.
I am not from the US, but the same principle applies here. The only countries I know about
that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland
at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of
us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness. A dramatic collapse
of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which
humanity may never recover. Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with
their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war.
Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues
across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery.
And if it's not as bad as the next to worst outcomes, then the time lost necessary over the
short to midterm of combating climate change, Will mean chronic food and water shortages in the
frayed will see humans are reverting to selfish struggle.
Putting your head in a hole in the sand is not going to make your or my national government
go away.
Yes, certainly work at the more democratic, more local levels of government. But if we want
to stop the wars - I do - we have to (re)gain control of the national government to do so. At
least we citizens of the US - author of all war in this century - must do so.
Paying attention to these two is a waste of time. The only way to deal with them,
and their endless replacements, is to deal them out of the popular vote.
No
to Clinton, no to Trump on 8 November ... and every election year thereafter to their elephant
and jackass replacements and to those in the House and Senate as well, until we can select a minimalist
platform acceptable to us in our majority and replace such candidates from the menagerie with
spokespeople chosen from among ourselves.
It's a multiyear program, but that's what it will take, it seems to me. Alternatives welcome.
But it does seem to me that change is essential, and that we're the only ones who can bring it
about. I'm going to do my part. I hope my 229,000,000 fellows will too.
john@8 - You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for
Clinton? That's hard to believe. She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia
crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with
Iran within a year if she is elected (and I regretfully but sincerely expect both to happen).
Drinking the blood of live infants is only going to keep her corpse alive for - what - maybe a
year or two? She is going to hit the ground running, and will not be satisfied until the Iranian
death toll cracks two million. She came, she saw, they died [cackle, cackle!].
If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest
of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident
enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little
more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation.
Since the on-line fantasy election is in English and only 31 Iranians have voted so far, it's
probably too early to tell. I'm thinking they are not representative of the other 78 million Iranians,
but who really knows?
Indeed, left port a decade ago.
Posted by me @ Ian Welsh's;
Didn't watch any of "it" (not a debate).
With all that's going on in the world today, militarily,
I'm somewhat convinced that if Clinton
wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful.
My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly
called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use.
Us humans are not the brightest bulbs in the known universe; I've removed optimistic/optimism
from my vocabulary.
In my definition of intelligence; humans are not even in the top 100…
That's my view at this time; voting is a very bad joke.
You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for
Clinton? yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes
for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of
'progressive' exchange students.
All members of the fake left advocate that the system must be changed progressively from
within and that a collapse would be mainly a disaster for the poor and weak. This notion is
as valid as to claim that a building destroyed by an earthquake is in need of some fresh window
dressing. Regardless of the global elite's arrogance, a systemic collapse is on its way and
will exponentially take hold of the planet within two or three decades. The super-rich will
eventually have nowhere to run or hide, and no private armies to protect them from the wrath
of nature.
Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave
drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When
people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress.
When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution ( Gilbert
Mercier )
so vote however the fuck you want, but please spare us your tedious proselytizing.
Dan's point in 12 is an excellent one. The foundational myths of the United States are becoming
less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly,
realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less.
People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms
of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests
are served better by non compliance than compliance.
One early example is the housing crisis back in 2008. People simply stopped paying their mortgages
while continuing to live in the houses. Banks were able to force a bailout, but that only encouraged
more people to feel justified in defaulting. Ignore your debts to credit card companies, banks,
etc and you are striking a serious blow against the system. While actually freeing yourself.
That is just one more example of resistance. Dan mentioned many others. The system's best weapon
is that they got most people to believe in it, which encourages semi voluntary obedience.
Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not
annihilation. Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive.
And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union.
The whole debate was unreal. Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim
while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a
worn out robot. It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate!
That's it. Trump blew this thing, in my view. Hillary caught her stride about a half-hour in, and
showed herself to be presidential. He came off as extremely unprepared. I cannot believe Trump helped
himself tonight, though for all I know, the voters loved him. Hillary didn't have a big win, but
she did win, and I believe that she stopped the bleeding for her campaign.
I know that everybody has a different standard for Trump, but if Trump ends up judged the winner
of this debate in the polls, I don't know what to say anymore. There is no way Donald Trump is ready
to be President of the United States. No way. And I don't believe many undecided voters changed their
mind to vote for Trump based on his performance tonight.
"... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
"... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
"... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
"... notwithstanding ..."
"... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
"... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
"... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
"... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
"... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
"... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
"... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
"... "neoconservative" ..."
"... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
"... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important,
intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.
She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union
and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as
to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of
US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors,
until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them
to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if
the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.
He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual
stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation,
and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding
the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end
only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from
the historical record, at that linked-to article.)
This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion
of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990):
George Herbert Walker Bush .
He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted
it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just
met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to
Politico the same day, which headlined promptly,
"George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .
G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't
carry forward his plan (
which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald
Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it
forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency,
and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential
ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)
What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly
stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to
and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:
Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election
systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight
to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will
treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political,
economic and military responses.
Russia denies that it did any such thing, but
the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course,
the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia
did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten
to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what
Hillary Clinton is promising to do.
Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context
of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President
might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark
from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013,
Britain's Telegraph had headlined,
"US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013'
: US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping
leaks".
But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends
it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and
34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.
Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a
military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice
across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".
She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because
US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making
sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our
military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and
get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military
spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".
She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view;
and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not
limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for
healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not
for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states"
such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia
and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist
groups are.
However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political,
economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she
said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.
The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented
ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic
nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican
neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and
lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein
- in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).
So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the
"Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion,
from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially
unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).
However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical
of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that
support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so,
there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.
The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news'
medium,
"Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on
September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to
contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".
The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined
"Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that
she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent
had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber
is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about
using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack
to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority
if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking
a pretext for war against Russia.
The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered,
"Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile
cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself
also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response".
That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US
were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself
as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually
has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has
now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential
in the present era.
The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st ,
"Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and
reported that a Pentagon official had
testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When
determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad
range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction
of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national
security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".
Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National
Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news'
reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November
8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.
Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is
farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.
As
the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President
Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker
attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced
"this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined
"President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches
Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the
White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".
The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially
declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the
government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can
basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them
from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion,
for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking
of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other
countries') intelligence operations.
It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy
on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President,
it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to
have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and
other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered
for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally
the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining
"NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:
On Tuesday, June 14 th ,
NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons
in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V
"collective defense"
provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to
strike back against the attacking country.
NATO is now alleging that because
Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone
in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her
unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business
that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and
would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense
clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia,
if the US government so decides.
So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's
next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary.
It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a
press conference September
5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front,
do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement,
insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian
war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian
parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement
as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and
the Obama-installed regime
in Kiev that's been
trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to
the reporter's question:
And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific
investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with
cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving
into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got
more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the
cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the
past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.
He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his,
have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer,
he
operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.
This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any
other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively
seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.
If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the
military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the
owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex
support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended
and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures
for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures
on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory,
that the last thing to cut in government is the military.
George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already
been leaked in one way or another), and
the
Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will
it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already
a serious nuclear confrontation .
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is
that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely
says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much
about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."
First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate
policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused
phrase – "transparent".
Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations
on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the
benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?
And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements
at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly
uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started
birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008
campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using
dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???
Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics,
are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful
lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories
have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they
spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should
operate???
Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are
so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business
runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.
People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that
too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….
An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted
for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:
You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked
self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live
up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on
any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin
called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else
would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated
by considerations of how things will look.
So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is…
a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called
him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding
into our brains.
And another quote that ends the brangelina article
.
There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They
seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable
mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class,
and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and
income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.
But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget
just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and
watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram.
It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup
inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.
The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their
union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning
scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen
shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no
doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina
just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.
One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit'
is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't
drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she
can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political
class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.
Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of
clinton ads.
Everyone's gotten over sensitized after that creepy but brief head bobbing incident. If you
hadn't seen that, I doubt you't take any notice of her nodding here. Looks more like an attempt
to channel nervousness or hide the effort to stay faux pleasant.
I'm more bothered by her claim that she's "met the standard" for releasing health records.
Bullshit. McCain released 10,000 pages and Shrub, 4,000. By contrast, she's given a page or two
of letters from her local Dr. Feelgood.
It depends on what the meaning of the word "standard" is..
This is just one of the reasons she isn't up by 50.. no one trusts her so why bother to care
about her policy or her proposals. She will just make up excuses as she goes along for whatever
she wants to do.
It's worth pointing out she said she's had memory problems since the concussion when she had
her interview with the fbi. So she's reaping what she's sowed as far as doubts about her health.
It's not like she's been consistent about how good her health is….much like she's not consistent
about…well…
Dunno if this has been posted here but this is part 3: "The following is adapted from the new
book Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America .
The Evictor-in-Chief
Bill Clinton's crime policies left many poor people with only two options: prison, or homelessness.
by Nathan J. Robinson
"... Informative to follow the link and get more of what Trump said and what Clinton waffles upon.
League of Conservation Voters is a DNC front. ..."
"... Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV! ..."
"... She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK. ..."
Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV!
She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK.
"... While Dems throw younger voters under the bus, they are cozying up to "W"–quite literally. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806509/Photo-Michelle-Obama-George-W-Bush-hugging-edited.html ..."
"... A whole generation of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton? ..."
"... I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me. It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one). ..."
"... You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning. ..."
One thing I never see discussed in the media is the effect of the sorry Clinton/Lewinsky/Impeachment
episode on millennials. As a parent of school kids in the suburbs at that time I can tell you
that I and other parents were none too pleased to see the presidents sexual infidelities on the
evening news and headlined in the paper for all youngsters to see (and emulate?).
A whole generation
of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior
was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton?
Jomo–We don't see anything about Billy's former indiscretions in the news anymore.
They'd rather the millennials forget about it.
That's all been carefully swept back into a little box gathering dust in the corner.
How convenient.
'Look over there! It's a Trump!'.
Distractions, distractions…
I lost all respect for Hellary (not that I had much, to begin with) when she 'stood by her
man' following the Monica incident.
She would have impressed me had she planted her foot up his a** all the way up to her cankles,
instead.
I've no doubt part of the 'bargain' of her staying by his side was to get her into the WH.
I've thought that since it happened. Call me Nostradamus.
I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me.
It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one).
Michelle was the only one I had any respect for… now… POOF like Keyser Soze that respect is
gone.
You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning.
"... The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ..."
"... People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt relevant ..."
"... Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years. ..."
"... Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow as they seem. ..."
"... Why the young don't like Hillary? Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP. ..."
"... She is clearly a liar & has track record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has. ..."
"... The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats especially older ones voting against their own interests. ..."
"... I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain. ..."
"... When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see how Clinton can win unless she cheats. ..."
"... So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at. ..."
"... Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation. ..."
"... That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video clip too. ..."
"... Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. ..."
"... Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly, eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them. ..."
"Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does
have the benefit of the evidence."
And
"The Clinton campaign might be forgiven for imagining these voters would "come home" had it
not spent the weeks since the Democratic Convention fundraising and playing Bush administration
endorsement bingo. The trouble is not that young people are insufficiently familiar with the neoconservative
horror show of their own childhoods. The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support
does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ."
And
"There are only so many times one can insist that young voters capitulate to a political party's
sole demand-vote for us!-in exchange for nothing."
I would suggest the ideological differences extend past the 38 age barrier, but
1. People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt
relevant
2. No one under 38 voted for Bill Clinton. The youth haven't twisted themselves into voting for
that ass in the first place. Even then Bill's 1996 campaign when he failed to crack 50% against
Mumbly Joe was marked by record low minority turnout, just what is being worried about now. Gee.
3. Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when
fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years.
Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow
as they seem.
Why the young don't like Hillary?
Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she
wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP.
She is pro fracking, pushing it overseas & once in office will promote it here. She is a corporatist bankster & won't release Goldman speeches. We have no jobs, no prospects, large amount of school
debt & must come of age during the second great depression. She is clearly a liar & has track
record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has.
The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats
especially older ones voting against their own interests.
Obama enjoys a relative popularity with young people despite being a disaster.
My guess is, that after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, any Democrat was a relief. Unfortunately,
so many in the Democratic Party and in the commentariat came of age during that time, so they
just assume that this is the way that it has to be.
Actually, no, Clinton did not look like a good option in 1992, and certainly wasn't my choice
in the primary. Even then there were a lot of people who only got talked into voting for him in
November on the lesser evil principle, regretted it, and did not vote for him again in 1996.
Plus they turned Ross Perot into a crazy loon because he kept attacking nafta, which was a
big deal at the time, effectively making it a more "manageable" two person race.
Hmmm…….Now that I think about it, that sounds kind of familiar.
Katniss–Looking back, I think when I voted for Ross Perot that was the last time I voted for
someone I actually wanted, rather than just voting the LOTE.
Bernie was the only candidate since I've actually wanted to win. I'm heartsick and mad as hell
he's not in the running.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how DWS beat Tim Canova in FL after all the dirty dealings
about DWS came out? More manipulation at the polls?
This is definitely true of my parents (both barely pre-boomers). After watching McGovern flop,
then Carter flail, they both assumed the Clintons were the best a liberal could hope for in this
country. Also my mother admired Hillary for being an unapologetic career woman when, especially
in the South, this was still controversial.
Indeed, having grown up in the age of Reagan and George HW, I basically agreed with them in
the 90s, even though I hoped more would be possible at some point. It wasn't until the financial
crisis (and, importantly, beginning to read NC!) that I began to realize how toxic the Clinton
legacy really was. Also, as a grad student, I was teaching lots of millennials and began to realize
how genuinely screwed they were by what we now all call the neoliberal (and neocon) era.
I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has
changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on
the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain.
When I told "older" people I would vote for Bernie, now Trump to shake things up-all I got
was a lecture. Clinton's will protect wall street & 401ks. And I think there is a lot of fear
about moving away from the token/chosen candidates.
When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox
news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone
loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see
how Clinton can win unless she cheats.
In Philly last time around they had 53 precincts that were without a single non-Obama vote.
Not one. The Black Panthers at the door shooed out the Republican observers and the magic happened,
this time around it will be much easier. And then we might end up with hanging chads on steroids,
with an 8-person Supreme Court that should be a fun-fest.
So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at.
Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly
puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's
chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate.
Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly,
eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
"... So Obama sent Emails to Clinton's private Email address that contained classified information. Was his handle "BBC"? Truly funny! ..."
"... I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there? ..."
I find this revelation to be particularly galling, how richly this entire crew deserves ankle
bracelets at a very minimum for perjury. When the president and the SoS lie and break the law
and nothing happens…um precisely where do we go from there?
"... The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt. ..."
"What standards do you think will matter for who really wins the debate, as in does better
with voters."
The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on
an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity
(black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump,
at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt.
i just saw a good comment at the guardian comparing trump to chemo, the "poison that we take
to cure us of the dnc/rnc cancer in hope they don't kill us first".
"... Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA. ..."
Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will
agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama
wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA.
"In 2015, the work rate (or employment-to-population
ratio) for American males ages 25 to 54 was slightly lower
than it had been in 1940, at the tail end of the Great
Depression. If we were back at 1965 levels today, nearly 10
million additional men would have paying jobs. The collapse
of male work is due almost entirely to a flight out of the
labor force-and that flight has on the whole been voluntary.
The fact that only 1 in 7 prime-age men are not in the labor
force points to a lack of jobs as the reason they are not
working."
Uh Nick – thanks for telling us what we already knew –
labor force participation is down. But do you realize how you
just contradicted yourself. Keynesians like myself would
agree that is due to a lack of jobs (aka low aggregate
demand). So is this a voluntary thing?
Let's read on:
"these unworking men are floated by other household
members (wives, girlfriends, relatives) and by Uncle Sam.
Government disability programs figure prominently in the
calculus of support for unworking men-ever more prominently
over time."
Since government provided benefits have not been scaled up
by our policy makers – he must think the hard working ladies
are cuddling young men for their good lucks or something. Uh
Nick – come to NYC and you will see that the ladies here
think this is so stupid. His next excuse is all those dudes
in prison. Seriously? Does this AEI clown not realize crime
is much lower than it was a generation ago? This piece was
dumb even by AEI "standards". But at least he did not dwell
on the Tyler Cowen porn thing.And at the risk of repeating
myself (and Noah Smith) if their thesis that young men had
suddenly decided to loaf, then the inward shift of the labor
supply curve would mean higher real wages than we are seeing.
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:37 AM
pgl said in reply to pgl...
I decided to put these thoughts in the following Econospeak
post which goes a little further debunking the
misrepresentations from the AEI hack:
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you or me
Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
I never died, says he
I never died, says he
In Salt Lake, Joe, says I to him
Him standing by my bed
They framed you on a murder charge
Says Joe, But I ain't dead
Says Joe, But I ain't dead
The copper bosses killed you, Joe
They shot you, Joe, says I
Takes more than guns to kill a man
Says Joe, I didn't die
Says Joe, I didn't die
And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Joe says, What they forgot to kill
Went on to organize
Went on to organize
Joe Hill ain't dead, he says to me
Joe Hill ain't never died
Where working men are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side
Joe Hill is at their side
From San Diego up to Maine
In every mine and mill
Where workers strike and organize
Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
Says he, You'll find Joe Hill
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night
Alive as you or me
Says I, But Joe, you're ten years dead
I never died, says he
I never died, says he
[More about Joe Hill and Alfred Hayes at the link.]
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:10 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Fortunately I will have very little spare time for idle or
addle minded leisure now until well after the election and
even well after the subsequent coronation save those days so
rainy that outdoor activity is entirely impractical.
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:14 AM
pgl said...
I never liked Ross Douhart. The political right thinks he has
written something very important:
"At the same time, outside the liberal tent, the feeling
of being suffocated by the left's cultural dominance is
turning voting Republican into an act of cultural rebellion -
which may be one reason the Obama years, so good for
liberalism in the culture, have seen sharp G.O.P. gains at
every level of the country's government. This spirit of
political-cultural rebellion is obviously crucial to Trump's
act."
Vote for a racist like Trump because liberals are
suffocating. Did I say I really do not like Ross Douhart?
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:55 AM
Peter K. said in reply to pgl...
Again we agree. (Signs of the apocalypse? I guess Trump is
going to win.)
Douchehat is the worst hypocrite. He wants
readers to believe he's an expert in morality and morale
rectitude and that's what conservative should be known for
when in reality Republicans chose Trump as their candidate,
one grand example of immorality and dishonesty.
And still Douthat turns on the liberals as behaving badly.
Suffocating? Howabout the insanity of the Republican
convention? That was suffocating.
He even quotes Internet Troll Steve Sailor!!!
*rubs eyes*
"(The alt-right-ish columnist Steve Sailer made the punk
rock analogy as well.)"
It's like Douthat writing about JohnH or BINY. Every one
of Sailor's Internet comments would be racist ones about
immigration. He's mentally unhinged.
"But it remains an advantage for the G.O.P., and a
liability for the Democratic Party, that the new cultural
orthodoxy is sufficiently stifling to leave many Americans
looking to the voting booth as a way to register dissent."
Clueless Douthat. The culture is getting better in certain
ways because the TV executives just want to sell advertising
and these performers are popular. It's capitalism at work.
Kudos to John Oliver for winning an Emmy.
"Among millennials, especially, there's a growing
constituency for whom right-wing ideas are so alien or
triggering, left-wing orthodoxy so pervasive and
unquestioned, that supporting a candidate like Hillary
Clinton looks like a needless form of compromise."
Note the disdain for millennials. "Triggering."
Conservative like Douthat and Bobo Brooks "trigger" the
hate and anger centers of my brain.
The fact is that Samantha Bee is right and NBC facilitated
the rise of Trump with the Apprentice and treating him well
on other shows like Jimmy Fallon and SNL.
[ Do not use sickening
language on this blog. Never ever use such language here. ]
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 02:44 PM
pgl said...
I have provided this link to some of the papers by Michael
Bruno – many co-authored by Jeffrey Sachs – for a couple of
reasons:
The minor reason is they have a nice paper on the Dutch
Disease – something JohnH thinks he understands but he needs
to read up on this topic. But the main reason has to do with
a stupid comment from Paine on my Econospeak post, which goes
to show how very little Paine actually learned in graduate
school.
I was try to paint a picture of some Real Business Cycle
claim that Bruno and Sachs emphasized when I was in graduate
school. I never truly bought their story as I was (and still
am) a die hard Keynesian. But here is how it went as applied
to the early 1980's (the period I was talking about). If a
nation enjoys a massive real appreciation and if aggregate
demand does not matter (the New Classical view which we
Keynesians do not buy) then the real wages of its domestic
workers rise. These workers supply more labor driving down
wages relative to domestic prices. So domestic firms hire
more workers.
That is their story. I do not buy it as I was clearly
mocking it. Alas Paine never learned this. And so he mocks
someone who did. Just another day at the EV comment section.
Aals.
Reply
Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 12:24 PM
anne said in reply to pgl...
Just another day at the -- ------- section.
The New York Times did what we should expect newspapers to
do when reporting on presidential campaigns, it told readers
that Donald Trump's energy plans don't make any sense. In the
first paragraph of a piece * on a speech Donald Trump gave in
Pittsburgh, the NYT told readers that his promise to increase
production of both coal and natural gas is "impossible." This
is of course true, since the fuels are substitutes. In fact,
the main reason coal production has fallen sharply in the
last five years has been the boom in low cost natural gas
from fracking. If we increase the latter further, then it is
almost inevitable that it will result in a further drop in
coal production.
Mr. Trump may not know he is promising the impossible, but
now NYT readers do.
Dean seems to be saying that coal production fell as a result
of a fall in its demand curve which would lower coal prices
along the supply curve. This chart of coal prices confirms
this story:
All excellent points but let me expand on one that I have
blogged about:
"his estimates of the additional growth we
would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly
inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would
amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years
which is not politically feasible."
Cutting nondefense Federal purchases by 25% would be very
bad policy. At the same time, it would not reduce spending by
nearly the made up numbers Trump is claiming even if this
really bad policy were passed.
Of course Trump is not as bad as Paul Ryan whose magic
astericks if actually turned into a real policy proposal
would mean eliminating all nondefense Federal purchases. And
for some reason people consider Ryan a serious policy person.
No? He is nothing more than a lying clown.
Anon. :
, -1
How do you reconcile these views with the lack of reaction
from the stock market as Trump's chances improve?
For being an outsider he seems devoid of new ideas and other
than some distinctions in defense, immigration, and trade,
mostly conventional. Hardly a change candidate, only more of
the same.
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what
it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while
Pence or Bannon would do the real work in the shadows
The
question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my
situation?
Trump: Many criticisms of current government.
No workable solutions.
Trump is a pure outsider. He knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern.
Trump would speechify and present bread and circuses while Pence or Bannon would do the real work
in the shadows
The question people should ask?: Will Trump policy help my situation?
"Trump is a pure outsider. He
knows almost nothing about what it takes to govern."
Does not the absence of Washington experience
make him preferable by definition? ;-)
Because we know the results of those who supposedly "knew something" (the son of previous
President with English language problems and "change we can believe in" -- junior senator with
questionable biography and very little experience in governing as well as Joe Lieberman as
his Senate mentor).
But in more serious mode it is unclear whether he can be worse then Hillary, who is "status
quo" candidate.
My hope is that with his paleoconservaive inclinatins, he might be able to suppress excessive
financization and slightly tame Wall Street sharks. Looks like he does not like Wall Street
and that might be huge positive.
While Hillary is definitely is in the pocket (like her husband Bill).
According to Mark Thoma for internal economic policy Trump is a more questionable choice.
And that might well be true. But neoliberalism is now in deep internal crisis anyway, so all
choices are bad.
As for foreign policy he is definitely preferable over more jingoistic and reckless neocon
Hillary.
Looks like we have a very difficult choice here folks.
I'm shocked at how quickly the
GOP has fallen in line behind his anti free trade policies. It appears that the official platform
of the GOP is now in favor of protectionism and subsidies. The silence from the small-l libertarian
wing of the GOP has been deafening.
Neoliberal globalization had already run its course and a reversal is in cards. Brexit was
the first swan.
That means "Free traders" now are under the gun as the results of their policies are pretty
evident and different from the promise that "a rising tide lifts all boats". Republicans attitude
reflect this reality -- that's why Trump managed to get into position he is now.
"Peak (or more correctly Plato) Oil" is another big factor here and if the price dynamics
is up this will be another nail in the coffin of neoliberal globalization.
As Obama put it in different context "I am the only one who is standing between you and
pitchforks". And he really served this role for eight long years.
But the mood of electorate changed dramatically. That's why both parties now try to distance
themselves from this idea at least for the period of elections.
With Trump election pitchforks might really move closer to their targets. That's why Wall
Street and "Clinton's Demorats" are so firmly behind Hillary candidacy.
Hillary is a "status quo" candidate and has two additional advantages over Trump:
-- her failing health which might prevent serving her the full term,
-- there is a possibility of her impeachment for "emailgate", which really would be a "skeleton
in the closet" for her administration.
"... "In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump" [ Advertising Age ]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers. ..."
"In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election
day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump"
[
Advertising
Age
]. "To put all this another way, of the $149,912,723 millon in booked
TV and radio spending through election day for these three presidential
candidates, $145,299,727 is being spent by the Clinton campaign combined
with pro-Clinton PACs." Wowsers.
"Trump's ads last ran nearly a week ago in four battleground states:
Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Since then, the GOP
presidential nominee has ceded the airwaves to Hillary Clinton - and is only
poised to launch a limited, less-targeted ad campaign in the days before
next week's debate" [
Politico
].
"Hillary Clinton is reserving $30 million in digital advertising as she
seeks to connect with young voters" [Business Insider]. The quotes in this
thing are pathetic, both Michelle Obama and Clinton's. Anybody who uses the
trope "I get that" automatically doesn't.
"Elizabeth Warren Tells Hillary Clinton Not To Hire Wall Street Donors" [
International
Business Times
]. At the Center for American Progress:
"I know that personnel is policy," she told the group. "But let me be
clear - when we talk about personnel, we don't mean advisors who just pay
lip service to Hillary's bold agenda [irony, surely?], coupled with a
sigh, a knowing glance, and a twiddling of thumbs until it's time for the
next swing through the revolving door, serving government then going back
to the very same industries they regulate. We don't mean Citigroup or
Morgan Stanley or BlackRock getting to choose who runs the economy in
this country so they can capture our government."
This,
before
November 8! They must be gritting their teeth in
Brooklyn, as Warren underlines her status as a party baron once more.
"The Clinton Global Initiative wraps up its 12th and final annual meeting
Wednesday amid intense scrutiny about the access its donors received while
Hillary Clinton was the nation's top diplomat" [
McClatchy
].
So I guess they're closing out the fund? And the payouts will come over the
course of a future Clinton administration….
Our endorsement is rooted in respect
for her intellect, experience and courage. ...
In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the
issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise
in a race where one candidate - our choice, Hillary Clinton - has a record of service and a raft
of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his
plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent
editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern
American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton
supporters. We're aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs.
Clinton - because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate
who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent
and a political system that seems broken. ...
2008 Crisis Deepened the Ties Between Clintons and Goldman Sachs
http://nyti.ms/2cLHnuY
NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and SUSANNE CRAIG - Sep 24
A blue-ribbon commission had just excoriated Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks for
fueling the financial crisis. Prosecutors were investigating whether Goldman had misled investors.
The company was a whipping boy for politicians looking to lay blame for the crash.
But in spring of 2011, Lloyd C. Blankfein, leading one of the nation's most reviled companies,
found himself onstage with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the nation's most admired
public figures at the time. And Mrs. Clinton had come to praise Goldman Sachs.
The State Department, Mrs. Clinton announced that day in an auditorium in its Foggy Bottom
headquarters, would throw its weight behind a Goldman philanthropic initiative aimed at encouraging
female entrepreneurs around the world - a program Goldman viewed as central to rehabilitating
its reputation.
Mrs. Clinton's blessing - an important public seal of approval for Goldman at a time when it
had few defenders in Washington - underscored a long-running relationship between one of the country's
most powerful financial firms and one of its most famous political families. Over 20-plus years,
Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars
in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation's
charitable programs.
And in the wake of the worst crash since the Great Depression, as the firm fended off investigations
and criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, the Clintons drew Goldman only closer. Bill
Clinton publicly defended the company and leased office space from Goldman for his foundation.
Mrs. Clinton, after leaving the State Department, earned $675,000 to deliver three speeches at
Goldman events, where she reassured executives that they had an important role to play in the
nation's recovery.
The four years between the end of the financial crisis and the start of Mrs. Clinton's second
White House bid revealed a family that viewed Wall Street's elite as friends and collaborators
even as the public viewed them with suspicion and scorn. ...
So these people think it is a big deal for the Sec of State to appear at a dinner with GS where
the bank starts a program to help women in business throughout the world.
10,000 Women is a program organized by Goldman Sachs with the goal of helping to grow local
economies by providing business education, mentoring and networking, and access to capital to
underserved women entrepreneurs globally. ...
I know about the program. A local charity group I do a little work for has partnered with it.
My question was doe the writers in that Times article mention the program?
If not, it is just another in a long series of attacks on the Clintons with little basis in
fact. I am not a big fan of either of them, but this treatment is beyond the pale.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
The NYT board like Mrs. Clinton has no idea about providing for the common defense.
Experience that could not remember nor take responsibility for safeguarding information that
could damage US well being...........
Nor remember the most basic requirements for filing public records.
"... In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect, Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if he implements his tax cut plans. ..."
"... However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately 25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers. ..."
"... Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the White House. ..."
Donald Trump's chances of becoming president are higher than I ever expected them to be, and there is
a chance that he will be able to put his economic plans into place. He claims his economic policies
will be good for the working class, but in reality his plans for high income tax cuts and deregulation
adhere closely to standard Republican ideology that has favored the wealthy and powerful. Even his plans
for international trade, an area where he claims populist support, would hurt far more people than it
would help. Here are the four areas where Trump's economic plans concern me the most:
Social Security and Medicare: In many ways, Donald Trump follows the Republican playbook on
fiscal policy. He believes in low taxes for the wealthy, and he wants to scale back or eliminate social
insurance programs such as Obamacare. But there are two programs he has indicated he will try to protect,
Social Security and Medicare. The question is whether he is serious about insulating these programs
from cuts or saying whatever is needed to get votes, and whether these programs can be protected if
he implements his tax cut plans.
Donald Trump's latest tax plan does not increase the national debt as much as his original plan,
revenues will "only" fall between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade instead of $9.5 trillion.
Trump has claimed that all of the lost revenue will be made up through the plan's impact on economic
growth, cuts to nondefense appropriations (essentially everything except defense, Social Security, and
Medicare), and deregulation.
However, his estimates of the additional growth we would get from cutting taxes and deregulating
are wildly inflated, and the cuts to nondefense appropriations would amount to cuts of approximately
25 percent over 10 years which is not politically feasible. If his plan were implemented, the debt would
likely go up by trillions leaving Republicans with just three choices, reverse the tax cuts, make cuts
to programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or accept the higher debt numbers.
Republican members of Congress, who would almost surely be in control if Trump wins the election,
will not reverse the tax cuts. But they have been eager to cut entitlement programs, only the threat
of a veto from Obama stood in their way. Would Trump allow the debt to skyrocket, or would he, as I
believe, end up signing legislation from Congress that includes large cuts to Social Security and Medicare?
Despite his promises, two key programs the working class relies upon would be vulnerable with Trump
as president.
Deregulation: I've already mentioned Trump's plan to reduce regulation, to the point of calling
for severe reductions in the budgets of agencies such as the EPA, the Education Department, food safety
enforcement, and a reversal of Dodd-Frank and other financial regulation. Deregulation of the magnitude
Trump is proposing would be a disaster waiting to happen.
There are obvious dangers to areas such as the environment and food safety, but sticking with economics
it would also make the financial system, which needs more regulation not less, more likely to crash
again. There would be more tolerance of monopoly power – a source of rising inequality, and less protection
generally of workers and consumers from powerful business interests. Trump claims that deregulation
will create economic growth, but that didn't happen when Reagan and Bush deregulated and there's no
reason to think it will be different this time.
Federal Reserve Composition and Independence: Trump's statements about the Fed have been inconsistent.
In November he said that Janet Yellen hasn't raised interest rates "because the Obama administration
and the president doesn't want her to." But in May he said, "I'm not a person that thinks Janet Yellen
is doing a bad job. I happen to be a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head,"
which he added he doesn't see happening anytime soon. But more recently he has gone back to a critical
stance, saying that Fed Chair Yellen is "obviously political," that "She's doing what Obama wants her
to do," and that she "should be ashamed of herself."
Trump has said he would replace Yellen if he is elected, and given his obvious lack of knowledge
about monetary policy he would likely rely upon his advisors to select a new Fed Chair and make appointments
to the Federal Reserve Board. That means we are likely to get a Chair and Board members who are hawkish
on inflation, opposed to financial regulation, more likely to base policy on strict adherence to a Taylor
rule (according to this framework, interest rates should have already been increased), and less likely
to take aggressive action if the economy crashes (except perhaps to bail out cronies on Wall Street).
That would be bad enough, especially for the working class who would take a back seat to concerns
about inflation and the interests of the financial sector, but my biggest worry is that Trump would
compromise the independence of the Fed. Trump's personality is such that he will want to be in control
of policy, and he will likely appoint people who are willing to do his bidding. The Fed's reputation
with the public is has fallen in recent years, and Trump's false accusation that the Fed is working
to serve Obama's political interests hasn't helped. If he further politicizes the Fed by appointing
Board members who will implement policy at his direction, it could do damage to the Fed as an institution
that would be very difficult to reverse.
International Trade: Trump's plans to renegotiate trade deals and impose tariffs on countries
that will not bend to his will have been discussed at length, and most economists believe it would be
very harmful for the economy. So let me just note that the most recent
estimate of the consequences of his
trade policy from the Peterson Institute is that his plan would cost the economy 4 million jobs,
send us into a recession, and be "horribly destructive." That's just an estimate, the actual number
could be larger or smaller, but whatever the actual number it would be very costly for workers.
There is little doubt that international trade has had a negative impact on workers in recent decades,
but the loss of millions of jobs and a recession is not the solution to this problem. We need tax and
transfer policies that ensure the gains from trade are widely shared, enhanced social protections for
workers who lose their jobs, and a concerted effort to attract more businesses that offer decent employment
opportunities. Trump's plans do not address these important issues.
Many people struggling to make ends meet each month believe that it doesn't matter much for their
lives who is elected president; their lives will go on much the same. But that is not true. Despite
Trump's attempt to convince you otherwise, the working class has a lot to lose if he makes it to the
White House.
"... my goodness..she didn't realise what she was getting into? Clearly her advisors / staff etc. are just as idiotic, careless and zombied-out as she is. (See also Paul Combetta story about the e-mails.) ..."
"... I saw a headline yesterday, that she plans to put inheritance tax at 65% (?), what will her potential Repub and pro-establishment type voters think of that? Yikes! (Insiders know this is just trash talk.) ..."
"... One might say she lost the plot because she is sick, imho she never grasped politics at all, nor computers - the internet, nor the MSM, because, hmm running a criminal enterprise is a completely different kind of biz. ..."
"... Let's not forget that besides winning in dubious circumstances a Senate seat, and being nominated by Obiman (whole ugly squirming can of worms there for sure) she is a two-time loser. She lost to her rival Barak while doing all to undermine him, and then in RL lost to Sanders but won by cheats, manipulations, and fraud. ..."
"... You have to compare with Obama who did the same show. The comedian did give her a chance in the beginning to talk policy but she did not take it. By playing defensive she enabled/encouraged him to get through to his last nasty question. ..."
"... To go to a show like this and answer in one-liners is a very bad idea. She must have gone completely unprepared. ..."
somebody @ 98,
my goodness..she didn't realise what she was getting into? Clearly her
advisors / staff etc. are just as idiotic, careless and zombied-out as she is. (See also
Paul Combetta story about the e-mails.)
I saw a headline yesterday, that she plans to put inheritance tax at 65% (?), what will
her potential Repub and pro-establishment type voters think of that? Yikes! (Insiders know
this is just trash talk.)
One might say she
lost the plot because she is sick, imho she never grasped politics at all, nor computers
- the internet, nor the MSM, because, hmm running a criminal enterprise is a
completely
different kind of biz.
Let's not forget that besides winning in dubious circumstances a Senate seat, and
being nominated by Obiman (whole ugly squirming can of worms there for sure) she is a
two-time loser. She lost to her rival Barak while doing all to undermine him, and then
in RL lost to Sanders but won by cheats, manipulations, and fraud.
You have to compare with Obama who
did the same show. The comedian did give her a chance in the beginning to talk policy
but she did not take it. By playing defensive she enabled/encouraged him to get through
to his last nasty question.
Hillary would have still had a chance to talk policy after that Trump commercial -
explaining why America is already great whatever.
To go to a show like this and answer in one-liners is a very bad idea. She must have
gone completely unprepared.
"... telling pollsters that they now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people around her what they think of them. ..."
And Jill Stein is eager to do so now. She could do a far better job than Sanders too, because
her progressive vision, unlike his, doesn't end at the country's borders. She, unlike he, would
at least try to take American imperialism on.
But in the actual world, Jill Stein is still "Jill who?," and telling pollsters that they
now favor the Donald seems to be the only way many people have to tell Hillary and the people
around her what they think of them.
"... More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century. ..."
"... The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated. ..."
More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were
disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of
discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.
Russia with its very limited democracy
is still better off: their nobility
of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections,
though they are still heavily represented in the government.
The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the
US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump
, is hated by the political establishment,
by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are
hated.
"... By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
"... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
"... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
"... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
"... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased
around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization:
that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies,
and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.
By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health
Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published
at VoxEU
Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns
over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues
of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President
Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and
sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more
fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus
is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially
on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows
and migration.
... ... ...
The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been
a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the
developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised
nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that
this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken
to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and
those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate
action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable.
It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic
transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and
health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience
sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also
not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher
income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional
farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.
Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation
to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic
waste dump in the process.
The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out
the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal
Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the
pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.
The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus
that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over
help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except
for a polluted planet.
The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and
the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is
becoming more firmly entrenched in society.
"broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively
disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."
…I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or
in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to
need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical
mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.
Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined
that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without
this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference
while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens
which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important
sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics.
because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.
So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking
population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing
population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling
uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed
some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution
and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people
can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which
presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the
richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a
few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "
Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are
indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of
entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This
rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries
now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has
meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks
of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?
Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions:
Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who
Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett
Reply ↓
Mr. Galifianakis then briefly interrupted the interview to play a campaign commercial for Mr.
Trump, claiming the billionaire businessman was the show's top sponsor. He then wrapped up the
exchange by telling Mrs. Clinton the two should stay in touch.
"What's the best way to reach you? Email?" he said.
The State Department said Friday it likely has more than 2,800 new emails former Secretary Hillary Clinton never turned over but
were recovered by the FBI, and will begin releasing them in batches beginning next month.
But only a small percentage will be processed before the election, the department said in court, arguing its resources are stretched
too thin to get them done.
All told, the FBI turned over 15,171 emails it recovered that involved Mrs. Clinton, and of those about 60 percent have been deemed
purely personal. That leaves some 5,600 that are work-related, but based on a sample of data, nearly half of those are duplicates,
leaving the 2,800 or so that are new.
Does that mean that he knewq that he is sending email to an unsecure private server?
Notable quotes:
"... The president's previously unreported use of a pen name is referenced in notes from federal investigators' April 5, 2016 interview with Huma Abedin ..."
President Obama emailed
Hillary Clinton
using a pseudonym while she served as his secretary of state, according to
FBI documents released Friday.
The president's previously unreported use of a pen name
is referenced in notes from federal investigators' April 5, 2016 interview with
Huma Abedin,
one of Mrs.
Clinton's closest aides, contained within 189 pages of records released late Friday afternoon
by the
FBI concerning its review of the Democratic presidential nominee's use of a private email
server while in office.
During that interview, investigators showed the aide an email exchange dated June 28, 2012
with the subject "Re: Congratulations!"
"Abedin did
not recognize the name of the sender. Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a
pseudonym used by the president,
Abedin exclaimed
'How is this not classified?'" according to the
FBI's summary of the interview.
"Abedin then
expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy
of the email."
The
FBI's revelation quickly spurred questions about the president's past claims concerning his
knowledge of
Mrs. Clinton's private email server.
Mrs. Clinton's
non-governmental email address was first revealed in 2013 when a Romanian computer hacker
breached the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime
Clinton
confidant, and subsequently leaked messages to the media that were sent to an account operated by
Mrs. Clinton's
outside of the .gov realm.
"... The polls are turning against her. "But Trump is lying!" Of course he is. Everyone knows he is lying. He is a salesman seeking his own advantage. He is expected to lie and to exaggerate. He does not even hide it. He is authentic in his lying. That's why he is - to many people - still a likeable man who one can deep down basically trust. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a politician. She claims not lie. But from her extensive public record people know that lying is exactly what she does. She is not thereby not authentic. She does not inspire confidence. Nor does she inspire sympathy. Just see her terrible, angry performance above. ..."
"... Does she really believe that campaign ads with Michael Hayden, Max Boot and other failed neocons will get her any votes? ..."
"... She already lost the young people. She lost the military who are far less interventionist than the politicians. No one of the real, non-interventionist left will ever vote for her. Here move to the right, away from criticizing the Republican party, enables Republicans to win more congressional seats than necessary ..."
"... Some may also wish to checkout this post "The Hidden Smoking Gun: the Combetta Cover-Up" http://www.thompsontimeline.com/the-hidden-smoking-gun-the-combetta-cover-up/ ..."
"... And I concur, she has lost this election by her own doing. The anger and frustration she exudes in the vid to the very people expected to volunteer for GOTV calls and rally's, poll watchers, transporting voters to the polls and so much more shows the depth of the cocoon she's living in. That's the real Hillary, btw. She is totally detached and out of touch with her base. ..."
"... Demonising of Russia and Putin must stop. Direct or indirect training and weaponising jihadis must stop. In that respect the only hope seems Trump. And that's why US citizens have an obligation to the World: Vote for Trump (otherwise Clinton wins) ..."
"... If there is one country in the World that needs regime change, it is the USA. 15 years of warmongering neocons is enough! ..."
"... Who gives a flying fart about this election or either of the establishment's offerings. Unfortunately voting by the American electorate will only bestow legitimacy on a corrupt system of management by those that hide in the shadows and conduct the business of 'national interest' as it were their own. ..."
"... The Republic is dead! Replaced with an Imperial executive to which all political power and all the levers of power have been given under the original Continuity of Government Act declaration on 9/11, which suspends the Constitution in whole or part under secret clauses. ..."
"... Lies by Trump?As far as I know, I haven't seen any, maybe some walk back on off the cuff stuff, but remember any news of Trump comes from serial liars who own the MSM, and there is not one MSM news outlet in America pro Trump, and that includes Fox. Any accusing lies promoted by serial liars should not be taken as truth. ..."
"... First axiom in know your enemy. ..."
"... Worse than that, demonizing Clinton's foreign policy is making alibis for the real author of the last eight years' catastrophes, Barack Obama. The US has just openly attacked Syrian forces in alliance with Islamic State. ..."
"... Seems a few people are unaware of the fundamental policy of the Outlaw US Empire: Attain Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people as spelled out in its own publications--Vision 2010 and Vision 2020. Clinton is the one wanting to further that goal; Trump is not. ..."
"... The only neocon I can think of that's as ugly as Clinton is Cheney. ..."
"... She is a neocon;. Any country that is not run by US corporations and whose leaders do not contribute to the Clinton Foundation may be bombed... ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few people in Congress that is not a crook or an idiot, and who understands the existential threat posed by nuclear war. ..."
"... It is all a complete sham, a circus, but I guess, what else can one do, how can one live? Ppl need to hang onto their afforded, allowed, 'ersatz' agency, the dot power of one vote one perso opinion is built-in, deliberately, and as managed by the MSM and Diebold (other..) is just a scam, a confidence trick. I like Jill Stein, fine, no results. ..."
"... Remember for ex. the massive w-wide protests, biggest ever, against the invasion of Iraq, which had no effect on events at all. ..."
"... I agree that Trump is a much more attractive lier, but his "abolish the EPA my first day in office" expresses a death wish for the species I can't reconcile with. Such stupidity, however and unlike WW3, is survivable and from Trump has the look of a forward bargaining position, but who can know? Kill us fast or kill us slow? At least with slow the body may awake before its dead and try to save itself. ..."
"... Trump has John Bolton as one of his foreign policy advisors. He is likely to become Sec. of State if Trump wins. ..."
"... As to Trump's potential cabinet picks, what's been said is nothing more than media speculation, particularly the promotion of Bolton by neocon-based media. Given that former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's Trump's main Foreign Policy advisor is an arch adversary of Bolton, I very much doubt there's any credibility in what's being written in media. And the hype surrounding Bolton as SoS reached its peak at the end of August with very little being said since. ..."
"... Oh jeez Tulsi Gabbard another invention of the CIA connected to hari krishna cults and everything you'd expect from a poltician made in the same factory as Barack Obama, fake deracinated unrecognizable name and all. ..."
"... No one in their right mind should vote for Hillary Clinton, regardless of your feelings about Trump. ..."
"... Whoever wins will be seen as illegitimate by half of the country. America is entering terminal stage, regardless the outcome of this race. With Trump you get the horrible end, with Clinton - endless horror. I'd vote for Trump. ..."
"... The American election has NOTHING to do with what goes on in Syria. Everything that happens there which is done by the U.S. is done on orders of the Rothschild cabal in its City of London, the owners of the U.S. and almost every other nation in the world today. Rothschild's neo cons carry the orders into action. None of it is random. All of it is part of their plot. ..."
"... I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump wins. Voters for Trump are much like voters for Brexit in Britain. A blind fury against what is being done to them by neo-liberal banksterism. Which is manifested in racism and xenophobia. ..."
"... It's a sort of popular revolt against neo-liberal corporatism, which expects consumers to buy, but exports the jobs which might furnish the income for consumption to China. In the end, corporate chiefs will understand that people have to have income in order to be able to spend, but not now. ..."
"... Trump reverse-messages through "dancing muslims" and "bad bad Iran deal" which serves to focus attention in a DIRECTION. Not to reality. ..."
"... "In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking. ..."
"... That candidate is Donald Trump." ..."
"... I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for Democrats), but I expect to vote for Trump. Clinton is a certifiable nutjob when it comes to destabilizing countries like Libya and Syria, and provoking Russia. She belongs nowhere near power. ..."
"... I feel voting for either major party candidate would be simply perpetuating a broken system. Very sad state of affairs in the world. My own country is like this but perhaps not quite so in your face. ..."
"... Could one argue - a sincere question - that HRC does represent a large part of the electorate - MIC (war party), security, big corps, media, new media, higher education and its scams, banking and banksters, health insurance etc. Big. Gov. and all the employees in there, basically the upper classes and middles? ..."
"... For those considering not voting, please consider that your vote for Jill Stein this year could help her get to the 5% threshold that would provide funding and ballot access for the Green Party in future elections. ..."
"... The economist Michael Hudson has made the excellent point that a President Trump would face, in effect, two opposition parties in Congress. So his ability to achieve his crazier policies would be extremely limited. ..."
"... Hell there are two documentaries at the top of NEtflix's list right now glorifying the Nazis in Ukraine and the White Helmets farce in Syria. Five Star rated. Literally every current show on TV and most films find a way to reference scary Russia. The "savvy" TV watcher is WITH HER to the point that they can laugh off her collapsing in public like it's no big deal!! ..."
"... The words that come out of Hillary's mouth, would have to be spoken by someone else, to be believed. She is totally maxed out on her lack of credibility. The Clintons sold out working people a long time ago. ..."
"... Hilton would probably be less disastrous for the domestic side of things, what with 3-4 USSCt nominations coming up and the whole racism/illegal migrants pot about to boil over. But Hilton is Yisrael's goy-to girl and her history in the ME is almost as frightening as her threats for a NFZ in Syria. She is to Netanyahu as Monica is to Bilton. ..."
"... I can almost see TheDonald going into the-art-of-the-deal mode and telling Netanyahu no more playing softball, if you want the $38 billion get your fucking fat ass in line with Palestine. ..."
"... The Democrats would have to be out of their stinking minds to put Biden in the running. He is a political dinosaur, erratic in his speech, mean spirited, and is fit to charm no one. He is probably senile. He has an irrational hatred for Putin, so don't count on surviving a Biden presidency, either. Since Sanders was swindled out of the nomination, it would only be the decent thing to do, to give him the nomination, since he at least received a huge number of votes. ..."
"... US citizens have been turning a toy steering wheel for so long, being assured with certainty their whole lives that it's connected to and controls the front wheels. A little over-reaction when the wheel actually does something for once is understandable and expected. ..."
"... After watching Rouhani and Lavrov speeches at the UN it struck me just how inane the US system is that it cannot present a lucid and logical argument through it's political elite. Seriously. The best we can have is Kerry's and Power's emotive obfuscation that is neither cogent nor persuasive. The US is losing its shorts based on rhetoric alone. Remember Kennedy's little photo collection of Cuban countryside littered with missile launchers? Or the Shock and Awe Hour on CNN, live from Baghdad? ..."
"... Clinton and the Democratic party have lost the base, possibly forever. Counting on the war loving, anti-worker, reactionary "center" is the poison the Democrats swallowed. Both the Republican and the Democratic party are damaged beyond repair and this whole "democracy" fraud is wearing thinner than ever. ..."
"... I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again. ..."
"... This has to be the best proof yet that the establishment is totally delusional and has gone off the deep end. This "murderous hostile dictator" to quite a few in this country seems to be the only grownup in the room. God help us with our "betters" thinking like this, we are in for a real shit storm. ..."
"... It seems Clinton left a classified briefing book in her room at a Moscow hotel a while back. I guess we are lucky that it wasn't the infamous nuclear football. ..."
The U.S. presidential election of 2016 is decided. Hillary Clinton will not win. She
knows it:
(You can turn the sound off. It is irrelevant.)
Clinton was
talking
during a video conference of the Laborers' International Union of North
America. She is furious with everything around her. She does not understand why she (again)
failed.
The polls are turning against her. "But Trump is lying!" Of course he is. Everyone
knows he is lying. He is a salesman seeking his own advantage. He is expected to lie and to
exaggerate. He does not even hide it. He is authentic in his lying. That's why he is - to
many people - still a likeable man who one can deep down basically trust.
Hillary Clinton is a politician. She claims not lie. But from her extensive public
record people know that lying is exactly what she does. She is not thereby not authentic.
She does not inspire confidence. Nor does she inspire sympathy. Just see her terrible,
angry performance above.
Does she really believe that
campaign ads with
Michael Hayden, Max Boot and other failed neocons will get her any
votes?
She already lost the young people. She lost the military who are
far less interventionist
than the politicians. No one of the real, non-interventionist
left will ever vote for her. Here move to the right, away from criticizing the Republican
party,
enables Republicans
to win more congressional seats than necessary
:
Through the end of May, the plan to "disaggregate" Trump, as it was described in one
lengthy email, remained a source of frustration for Miranda, the campaign's go-between
on messaging at the DNC. In the same email, subject-lined "Problem with HFA [Hillary For
America]," he argued that the campaign's frame - that "Trump is much worse than regular
Republicans" - would give down-ballot GOP candidates an "easy out" and put every
Democrat not named Clinton at a possible disadvantage. ("It might be a good strategy
ONLY for Clinton," Miranda wrote.) Worse, he added, the strategy would put the party "at
odds" with the its own broader message against Republicanism.
This is a (well deserved) disaster for her party.
There is some Hail Mary chance for the Democrats to still win. Immediately retire
Clinton for medical reasons. Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency.
Otherwise, I predict, Trump will win.
To what outcome?
Nobody knows. Electing Trump is a blind dart throw with unpredictable results. But that
still feels better than to again see a Clinton in the White House.
This morning brings an article in Politico by one of RFK's speech writers on why he is
voting for Trump as the "peace candidate" -- be it ever so humble, even tenuous, when
the alternative is Clinton.
The Guardian has Clinton declaring her magic way to defeat ISIL is to kill Baghdadi
... yup, more of the old-time religious "cut of the head of the snake" mythology
From the get-go 'quickened' US voters were FU Deep State not necessarily USA-USA-Trump.
Nothing's changed. Except being more convinced every day a vote for Trump is the ONLY
means we have to 'smoke the hive'. And buy some time. For better angels to emerge.
And yes, I'm sure someone will take issue with the site BUT the post is written by the
attorney who worked with the gal that discovered Oh Shit Guy's Reddit posts -
"All of this was caused by the amazing sleuthing of a student majoring in eDiscovery
and litigation, then promoted by a Twitter parody account, then expanded upon and
disseminated by an army of Reddit users. Nothing can be weirder than this election,
but I hope this article proves that this revelation didn't involve a "conspiracy"
between Putin and Trump -- it was simply the crowdsourced efforts of people who are sick
and tired of Hillary Clinton's corruption and cover-ups."
Some are speculating that this newly found material is why she canceled her NC
fundraiser on Tuesday and has all but disappeared from the campaign trail.
And I concur, she has lost this election by her own doing. The anger and frustration
she exudes in the vid to the very people expected to volunteer for GOTV calls and
rally's, poll watchers, transporting voters to the polls and so much more shows the
depth of the cocoon she's living in. That's the real Hillary, btw. She is totally
detached and out of touch with her base.
Heh I have been banging on about this for ages and now it is MS. The polls play
catch-up; not because they are rigged though that is definetly easy to do (and some
might be I wouldn't know) but because the polls are run by hangers-on to the PTB,
establishment types who cater to their brethen that can afford the fees and have
expectations concerning the result.
The methods used are deficient, there is a subconscious / old regulatory element in
play, the rules are thus, the procedure is this, the automatic machine analysis (which
nobody except some rare top dogs understand, statistics is a lost art/science) churns
out these results, etc.
To not loose credibility for evah, they have to adjust a bit, get real, and start
getting with what is going on. In fact the polls (in the main, carried out by
independent biz. who charge for their services) are better than, but can be compared to,
the BLS who spew out meaningless numbers that don't reflect the employment situation in
the USA. No doubt at the BLS hordes of employees are busy following the directives and
the laid-down calc. procedures and so on, but they churn out fantasy numbers in favor of
a political imperative.
We make our own reality
is getting not only tired, old
but a point or rebellion. Other measures (GDP) are just as bad.
Demonising of Russia and Putin must stop.
Direct or indirect training and weaponising jihadis must stop.
In that respect the only hope seems Trump.
And that's why US citizens have an obligation to the World: Vote for Trump (otherwise
Clinton wins)
If there is one country in the World that needs regime change, it is the USA.
15 years of warmongering neocons is enough!
Who gives a flying fart about this election or either of the establishment's offerings.
Unfortunately voting by the American electorate will only bestow legitimacy on a corrupt
system of management by those that hide in the shadows and conduct the business of
'national interest' as it were their own.
The Republic is dead! Replaced with an
Imperial executive to which all political power and all the levers of power have been
given under the original Continuity of Government Act declaration on 9/11, which
suspends the Constitution in whole or part under secret clauses. This Act has been
renewed ever since, including recently by Obama, now labeled as a 'State of Emergency'.
Under a SoE all political power is entrusted to the executive branch under the President
who assumes all power. They just have not informed the public on what is entailed when a
SoE is declared. The President has become a figurehead, taking orders from the wealthy
oligarchs, and either exalted or to be dismissed by a Praetorian Guard, whose commanders
in the military security surveillance complex are in the pay of these same
oligarchs.
Congress is now a redundant body playing a farcical role in a grotesque
pantomime of Republicanism. This state of affairs is largely repeated to varying degrees
throughout western civilization or wherever the western oligarch's sphere of influence
extends.
Lies by Trump?As far as I know, I haven't seen any, maybe some walk back on off the cuff
stuff, but remember any news of Trump comes from serial liars who own the MSM, and there
is not one MSM news outlet in America pro Trump, and that includes Fox.
Any accusing lies promoted by serial liars should not be taken as truth.
In his co-conference with Clinton with some military people, Trump talked about the
generals being reduced to "rubble," and said more or less openly he would fire generals
who couldn't deliver. Trump is running on a platform of winning wars, as in conquering
the people instead of just flying over a wasteland created by bombing. He is not the
peace candidate. He is MacArthur versus Hilary's Truman.
Worse than that, demonizing Clinton's foreign policy is making alibis for the real
author of the last eight years' catastrophes, Barack Obama. The US has just openly
attacked Syrian forces in alliance with Islamic State. Just today I read more boasts of
supposedly preemptive attacks, which means unprovoked, by the highly unstable south
Korean state on the north. NATO is moving troops into eastern Europe while preparing for
war. Trump has no problem with this, and pretending Clinton is somehow going to be worse
is more or less insane.
As for the liar thing? Trump did not get billions by being honest. The Clintons pay
taxes, which is probably more than you can say for Trump.
You cannot vote against someone. Either you vote for someone who actually ran for
some of the things you want, or your vote against Trump or Clinton will be read as
support for things you don't want. If you're against the US attacks on the world, then
you need to vote for someone like Gloria La Riva or Jerry White. (Who? You ask.
Precisely.) They at least know that invading other countries is not just a deplorable
vice, but business. Trump is for business, just like Clinton.
Seems a few people are unaware of the fundamental policy of the Outlaw US Empire: Attain
Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people as spelled out in its own
publications--Vision 2010 and Vision 2020. Clinton is the one wanting to further that
goal; Trump is not. Neither will actually pursue the interests of the citizenry--only
Stein and the Greens have stated they will. The only neocon I can think of that's as
ugly as Clinton is Cheney.
Thank you, kind sir. Hillary is a bad news bear. One columnist at counterpunch.org
descibed her as a "moral mosster," (tED RALL THE CARTOONIST)
She is a neocon;. Any
country that is not run by US corporations and whose leaders do not contribute to the
Clinton Foundation may be bombed...
I do not ave any speakers hooked up to my Pc, so I
didn't have to listen to her... There are some great new cartoons caLLed Masha and the
Bear - from the dreaded Russia... EXCEllent. Mentioned on rt.com news a douple of months
ago... RT is one of the best news shows in the world.
I rather like the suggestion: "Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the
vice-presidency." Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few people in Congress that is not a crook or an idiot, and
who understands the existential threat posed by nuclear war.
Ppl are actually writing about voting for that or that figure, Clinton, Trump, third
party, Wilders, in different contexts / countries? Like their personal expression on
Facebouk *likes* expressed in a vote has some import or validity or will be even ever
taken into account? (My posts about predictions of the vote in the US are at another
level.)
It is all a complete sham, a circus, but I guess, what else can one do, how
can one live? Ppl need to hang onto their afforded, allowed, 'ersatz' agency, the dot
power of one vote one perso opinion is built-in, deliberately, and as managed by the MSM
and Diebold (other..) is just a scam, a confidence trick. I like Jill Stein, fine, no
results.
Remember for ex. the massive w-wide protests, biggest ever, against the invasion of
Iraq, which had no effect on events at all.
To my mind, the biggest danger the US faces is someone who can distract the electorate
for another term with foreign entanglements. Opposition is organizing across the
left/right spectrum and the depth of the legitimacy crisis is growing with each day of
the Dollary Clump Campaign.
I agree that Trump is a much more attractive lier, but his "abolish the EPA my first
day in office" expresses a death wish for the species I can't reconcile with. Such
stupidity, however and unlike WW3, is survivable and from Trump has the look of a
forward bargaining position, but who can know? Kill us fast or kill us slow? At least
with slow the body may awake before its dead and try to save itself.
Trump has John Bolton as one of his foreign policy advisors. He is likely to become Sec.
of State if Trump wins.
He is more keen on war than Clinton if that is possible. And
it's highly likely Trump will listen to him. Even if he doesn't he will hold enough
power to make an impact.
No matter who wins it is likely the wars will continue.
As to Trump's potential cabinet picks, what's been said is nothing more than media
speculation, particularly the promotion of Bolton by neocon-based media. Given that
former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's Trump's main Foreign Policy advisor is an arch adversary
of Bolton, I very much doubt there's any credibility in what's being written in media.
And the hype surrounding Bolton as SoS reached its peak at the end of August with very
little being said since.
Oh jeez Tulsi Gabbard another invention of the CIA connected to hari krishna cults and
everything you'd expect from a poltician made in the same factory as Barack Obama, fake
deracinated unrecognizable name and all.
No one in their right mind should vote for Hillary Clinton, regardless of your feelings
about Trump. There is not only a trail of corruption a mile long with money from Saudi
Arabia and other shady places, but a real threat to the world as we know it in the form
of her warmongering. It appears Hillary and people like George Soros want to flood the
world with refugees after the blow up countries, thereby giving the government reason to
form a police state. The eventual goal seems to be globalization in the form of one
government for one world.
Thats if we survive the nuclear holocaust that would take place if we attack Russia
which no one wants. We need to forge closer with Russia as we share some common
interests and common enemies. No one wants to watch the world burn so the elites can
gain more power. The people are tired of it. It should never have gotten to the point
where its at in America. Its on a bad course. This election is the most important of our
lifetimes as its really for the fate of the human race as we know it
Whoever wins will be seen as illegitimate by half of the country. America is entering
terminal stage, regardless the outcome of this race. With Trump you get the horrible
end, with Clinton - endless horror. I'd vote for Trump.
When Hillary loses, we'll be treated to a bevy of thought-pieces on how only the
suppressed-but-all-too-real power of male chauvinism separated her - "the clearly better
qualified candidate" - from the prize that she deserved. If Bernie Sanders' milquetoast
coffee shop social democrat youths could be successfully re-cast as racist, chair
throwing "Bernie Bros," then anything is possible. Anyone left of Mussolini who has any
spine at all (if such people exist) will be "Naderized" pretty heavily. The only
advantage of the Olympics vs. national elections is that the former, while replete with
much the same sort of rancid schmaltz and mind-killing banality as the latter, is
mercifully short by comparison.
All this is on the assumption that votes count in American "elections," which is pure
nonsense. The votes are fixed always. Besides, the same money owns both parties and the
media (and practically everything else) so what difference does it make who is put in
office (not elected)? None. Words are meaningless coming from a political prostitute's
mouth.
The American election has NOTHING to do with what goes on in Syria. Everything that
happens there which is done by the U.S. is done on orders of the Rothschild cabal in its
City of London, the owners of the U.S. and almost every other nation in the world today.
Rothschild's neo cons carry the orders into action. None of it is random. All of it is
part of their plot.
However, the Russians may have a better plot - simply tell the truth and then act upon
it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump wins. Voters for Trump are much like voters for
Brexit in Britain. A blind fury against what is being done to them by neo-liberal
banksterism. Which is manifested in racism and xenophobia.
All are being lied to, and
they won't achieve what they want.
It's a sort of popular revolt against neo-liberal corporatism, which expects
consumers to buy, but exports the jobs which might furnish the income for consumption to
China. In the end, corporate chiefs will understand that people have to have income in
order to be able to spend, but not now.
Now we have blind revolt against poverty. The same in de-industrialised Ohio as in
post-industrial Wales. In the latter case, they were being heavily funded by the EU for
reconstruction, but they still voted for Brexit. Trump in Ohio much the same.
Neither candidate ever really address foreign policy. Cuz everyone knows all roads lead
to zion. And all the switches get flipped if anyone touches that rail. So Trump
reverse-messages through "dancing muslims" and "bad bad Iran deal" which serves to focus
attention in a DIRECTION. Not to reality. Cuz reality might get him whacked.
We are all dancing on the edge of sanity. Having lived the very definition of
insanity for more years than one cares to admit. Most can't tell the difference anymore.
All things considered. This is BEST. ELECTION. EVER.
"In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on
Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the
sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that
America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and
civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and
have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate
has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the
same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are
attacking.
That candidate is Donald Trump."
I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for Democrats), but I expect
to vote for Trump. Clinton is a certifiable nutjob when it comes to destabilizing
countries like Libya and Syria, and provoking Russia. She belongs nowhere near power.
I'm afraid that Trump might behave like a loose canon with respect to Korea, and
other smaller countries. That would still not be the disaster that going toe to toe with
Russia would be.
Srdja Trifkovic, the brilliant foreign affairs editor for Chronicles Magazine, has
given high marks to Trump for a foreign policy speech, and an "advantage Trump" for the
recent commander-in-chief interview.
Last I heard, he has a non-existent replacement for Obamacare (I seriously doubt just
letting companies compete across state lines will solve most of the problems), and
generally seems weak regarding domestic and economic policy. Let's hope he hires good
people, and is not just a good listener, but also makes good calls.
That's precisely my thoughts. Very well said. I'm not American so perhaps my voice
counts for a different perspective than the domestic population but at the same time
it's painfully obvious both candidates are vying for a chance to serve big business.
Perhaps in slightly different ways but they both will surely bow down before most of the
same powerful interests. Both have no interest in reigning in the MIC nor environmental
destruction. Just look at the competition for the Israeli government's blessing.
I feel voting for either major party candidate would be simply perpetuating a broken system.
Very sad state of affairs in the world. My own country is like this but perhaps not quite so in your
face. It's like, I regret voting in the last election for my country's liberal party candidate
because in the end he operates like the conservative incumbent just with a different face. In the
USA it's much more bold faced though.
Trump may be somewhat of a wildcard but I wouldn't count on him being much different
in the end if he indeed wins the election. Who he's already surrounded himself with in
the Republican party is very telling and doesn't exactly point to change in my eyes.
I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for
Democrats), but I expect to vote for Trump.,
Same here. But Trump is not an orthodox Republican. If McCain, Romney, or a Bush were
running against Hillary, I would vote Green, as I did in the last election.
The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman's book "Predicting the Next
President: The Keys to the White House 2016" are:
Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats
in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds
mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in
foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in
foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national
hero.
The Dems don't have enough keys to win this election, according to Licthman. He sounds
like a Republican but gives the impression that he hates Trump (but that could just be
to maintain respectability with his academic colleagues).
Lichtman's system is pretty simple and assumes that an election turns around whether
voters are satisfied with the performance of the incumbent party. On a basic level,
common sense tells one that that is indeed what elections are about. And in this
election cycle, people are fed up with the status quo. So what the Dems do is run the
most status quo candidate imaginable. The way Dems hoped to get around this problem is
to convince people that this is not a normal election, that Trump is beyond the pale.
(Lichtman follows that line himself in that interview.)
Another factor that might come into play that I haven't seen mentioned in the
mainstream press is that blacks are as fed up with the state of things as anyone. The
Dem strategy of triangulation depends on getting enough demographics into their camp.
But I have a feeling that Hillary will lose a lot of black votes that Obama got. They
showed their loyalty to Obama by voting for Hillary in the primaries. The pressure to
show that loyalty a second time is weaker, since his term is almost over.
Could one argue - a sincere question - that HRC does represent a large part of the
electorate - MIC (war party), security, big corps, media, new media, higher education
and its scams, banking and banksters, health insurance etc. Big. Gov. and all the
employees in there, basically the upper classes and middles?
Yeah, but it's not a majority.
DT represents - or pretends to - some portions of the underclass, veterans, the
left-outs, white workers in de-industralised zones, cops fighting crime, the
nefarious influence of foreigners (criminals etc.), national pref. of a kind, and on
an on?
You'd think as a graduate of Yale Law School she would know that "Why aren't I...."
is incorrect. Maybe she did know that at one time and now it's just the meds.
No fun being a grammar cop, but it"s "Why am I not...." But then as W showed, you
don't have to speak standard English to be the pres.
For those considering not voting, please consider that your vote for Jill Stein this
year could help her get to the 5% threshold that would provide funding and ballot access
for the Green Party in future elections.
The economist Michael Hudson has made the excellent point that a President Trump would
face, in effect, two opposition parties in Congress. So his ability to achieve his
crazier policies would be extremely limited.
He would likely be a one term POTUS, and
during that term the American people would be afforded some breathing space to
acknowledge how off the rails things have gotten, and some time to start to build true
alternatives. Clinton delivers more of the same with the attendant illusion of normality
which provided cover for Obama. More of the same means direct confrontation with Russia
and China.
Nope. The millenials/meme generation/literally everyone under 30, the SJWs young and
old, the MIC horde(who btw are the current class with the most to lose with a vote
against the status quo, and friggin YUGE in number since this is the only remaining
growth industry), the "military"; well the ones who want to keep their jobs, retirees
who remember who Trump really is, everyone in higher education, big Pharma,
"liberals"....
The people voting for Trump are the isolated, vanilla nouveau rich; a few Hollywood
pundits, and racist retirees.
I visit enough of the normal internet and the real street to know this, no poll will
reflect it, and you can't predict anything based on rallies, pundits, or even the
actions and personalities of the candidates themselves. FEAR is what sells Hillary, not
her personality or lack of. Everyone is afraid of Russia, etc bc of the current regime's
lies. And by regime I mean the media, too. Hell there are two documentaries at the top
of NEtflix's list right now glorifying the Nazis in Ukraine and the White Helmets farce
in Syria. Five Star rated. Literally every current show on TV and most films find a way
to reference scary Russia. The "savvy" TV watcher is WITH HER to the point that they can
laugh off her collapsing in public like it's no big deal!!
The "non-interventionist left" is literally in the few thousands at most. Hell half
of us are here on this board.
Anyway it doesn't matter. The officials/spinmeisters will stay, just like Obama kept
Bush's people. Trump will fall in line if he hasn't already, and when they show him the
MIC balance sheets he'll be just as much if not more "ALL IN" than Clinton. He's already
pushing for and even more fascistic police force.
She'll have to keel over permanently for Trump to win. Even if he wins by a hair,
there will be malfeasance.
The words that come out of Hillary's mouth, would have to be spoken by someone else, to
be believed. She is totally maxed out on her lack of credibility. The Clintons sold out
working people a long time ago.
b:
"There is some Hail Mary chance for the Democrats to still win. Immediately retire
Clinton for medical reasons. Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency."
Yeah, good to see some out-of-the-box thinking, especially when it reflects my multiple
comments on this august blog going back to February when I
predicted
Hilton will bow out or be knocked out and Biden will step in. I'm
stickin'
to that prediction.
But at this point Sanders is a lot farther out of the box than Biden, and I like
that. Maybe a side-deal with Sanders is the way the Democrats shut him up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Electing Trump is a blind dart throw with unpredictable results. But that still
feels better than to again see a Clinton in the White House."
I tend to agree. Hilton would probably be less disastrous for the domestic side of
things, what with 3-4 USSCt nominations coming up and the whole racism/illegal migrants
pot about to boil over. But Hilton is Yisrael's goy-to girl and her history in the ME is
almost as frightening as her threats for a NFZ in Syria. She is to Netanyahu as Monica
is to Bilton.
I can almost see TheDonald going into the-art-of-the-deal mode and telling Netanyahu
no more playing softball, if you want the $38 billion get your fucking fat ass in line
with Palestine.
If Biden steps in, it's election over. Bernie, I don't know. I don't think the
country is going to elect a septuagenarian Jew ideologue over a septuagenarian Queens
blow-hard with bad hair.
no matter how much it shouts
no matter if it is alive or dead
nsa spielberg lucas vision computer simulation
to saturn infinity
or body double thinner look alike e
she it cannot win a race or a fight
No One Beats Al Qaeda
The US has tried for years to beat Al Qaeda, but now, after Americans have given up
much freedom to central government and borrowed trillions of dollars from central banks,
there is more terrorism than ever before. Nevertheless, don't blame the FBI or the CIA,
or Bush or Obama. There is no shame in being beaten by the best.
Al Qaeda must be at least a generation ahead of the US – both strategically and
technologically.
In fact, the only weakness of Al Qaeda is that they keep leaving their passports at
the crime scene, but consider that their passports are indestructable. America simply
doesn't have the technology yet to make indestructable passports, so clearly, those Al
Qaeda scientists in those caves in Afghanistan are at least a generation ahead of the
US. Al Qaeda passports are so tough that they were found on the street after the towers
collapsed – unscathed. Maybe this doesn't sound as scary as it should … until one
considers that none of the four black boxes were recovered from the towers. So,
America's most indestructable technology (black boxes) were vaporized under conditions
where Al Qaeda passports survived – unscathed. It's not as if American black boxes are
crap either (they have never been completely destroyed before); it's that Al Qaeda
technology is just that good.
What other possible explanation could there be? It's almost as if …
See what I mean about strategic brilliance? Al Qaeda almost tricked me into
considering whether 9/11 could be an inside job, and whether those Al Qaeda scientists
in those Afghan caves are not really a generation ahead of the US, but an inside job is
clearly impossibe because the CIA is not allowed to operate inside the US.
The evidence for Al Qaeda superiority is overwhelming. Consider that Al Qaeda knocked
down three towers with only two planes! No one else could have done that. Two planes hit
two towers, and then a third tower (WTC7) collapsed a few hours later. The NIST
explained a few years later that it was an ordinary office fire that resulted in what
everyone says looks exactly like a controlled demolition, but how is it that only Al
Qaeda knew that WTC 7 was the only building in the world that would collapse exactly
like a controlled demolition as a result of an ordinary office fire? What's more, they
somehow tricked the owner, Larry Silverstein, and John Kerry too, into claiming years
earlier that we brought WTC 7 down as a controlled demolition because it was badly
damaged, but how did they trick America's best into confessing to a conspiracy that
never happened? Clearly, they even have some kind of mind control.
I could go on for pages and pages, but there is one hope – Israel. Israel may lag
behind Al Qaeda scientists in those Afghan caves, but their strategic brilliance may be
as advaned as that of Al Qaeda, so America's best bet is to give Israel all of our
technology, and to borrow trillions more dollars and give them to Israel.
Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has already thought of this, and may have successfully
neutralized Israel when it tricked several Mossad agents into setting up cameras ahead
of time on 9/11 and dancing with joy when the towers collapsed. Even if Al Qaeda's
preemptive move has made it politically impossible to give everything to Israel, at
least Israel is our strongest ally in the region and is thus far more important than
before 9/11 …
The Democrats would have to be out of their stinking minds to put Biden in the running.
He is a political dinosaur, erratic in his speech, mean spirited, and is fit to charm no
one. He is probably senile. He has an irrational hatred for Putin, so don't count on
surviving a Biden presidency, either. Since Sanders was swindled out of the nomination,
it would only be the decent thing to do, to give him the nomination, since he at least
received a huge number of votes.
Sanders has discredited himself. He really WAS a sheepdog!
Evil vs. awful? Why not
vote Green?
Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice
-- Martin Luther King
US citizens have been turning a toy steering wheel for so long, being assured with certainty
their whole lives that it's connected to and controls the front wheels. A little over-reaction when
the wheel actually does something for once is understandable and expected.
After watching Rouhani and Lavrov speeches at the UN it struck me just how inane the US
system is that it cannot present a lucid and logical argument through it's political
elite. Seriously. The best we can have is Kerry's and Power's emotive obfuscation that
is neither cogent nor persuasive. The US is losing its shorts based on rhetoric alone.
Remember Kennedy's little photo collection of Cuban countryside littered with missile
launchers? Or the Shock and Awe Hour
on CNN, live from Baghdad?
Clinton and the Democratic party have lost the base, possibly forever. Counting on the
war loving, anti-worker, reactionary "center" is the poison the Democrats swallowed.
Both the Republican and the Democratic party are damaged beyond repair and this whole
"democracy" fraud is wearing thinner than ever.
Did you all catch Netanyahu's UN address? It was more Warner Bros cartoonery of course
put notably, only the US, and a few puupets like Jordan and Egypt were there to listen
to him. So it was like a standup comedian performing to a packed audience his family and
and like 2 friends.
Didn't someone say that about the fascists in Germany? "Oh, Hindenberg, von Papen, and
the army will keep him in line." I'm not saying Trump is a fascist (still at the theory
and not practice of mass violence), but he is a volatile and dangerously delusional
demagogue.
Hasn't anybody ever heard of the notion of "The Imperial Presidency"? I mean, Arthur
Schlesinger only wrote a damn best-seller on it.
Assuming, bizarrely, that he can't ginger up enough Tea Partiers to ram his agenda
through (they effectively run the House), he still has plenty of executive authority and
will find more than enough ambitious hacks to do his bidding in the Trump
"Administration." The Presidential limo should be a clown car.
And further assuming, contra to sejomoje fine exposition at 65, he oddly enough gets
elected. The last I saw, he still fails in the Electoral College, despite The Duckhead's
rise in the polls.
I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where
the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again.
Trump could
easily
fuck up, and get us all killed. Could he be impeached
before he did serious damage? Who knows?
For real change, don't vote Orange. Or Greeen. Vote Red.
Years ago, during the Bush v. Gore debates, the sound was off on the TV and my wife (who
doesn't follow politics) made the remark: "Gore is going to lose". I asked her why she
thought so and she said "Bush seems very comfortable with who he is, Gore doesn't look
like it" (this was after the bit where Gore charged the podium and Bush looked back, a
bit surprised and amused.
The point is this: I have come to believe that debates are won and lost largely on
visuals - it's like a cattle auction. The one with the greatest presence, the poise, the
body language and the one you feel comfortable with is the one that wins. The media may
care deeply about whether the candidate correctly identified some obscure Iraqi general,
but the public doesn't really care.
It will be an interesting debate to see (I'm tempted to watch it with the sound off).
Evil reinforces evil and unchecked, leads to Orwell's chilling outlook: "a boot stamping
on a human face - forever".
The duopoly is a shell game. The more focused one is on finding the lesser-evil
pebble, the less one is aware that they are being played. And the more that is lost, the
more eager are the dupes to play again.
It may be that nothing changes until the 'reset'
(the point at which the "music
stops" and failure can no longer be covered up)
but still, I'd rather light a candle
than curse the darkness.
That's liberalism's fault, not the left's. They're the religious
wackadoos trying to build a bourgeois utopia, not us! You and I both know the liberal
State is a self-enforcing fraud designed to manage the affairs of (and only of) the
bourgeoisie and their property.
I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where
the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again.
And
WHY NOT?
I'm in Uncle Sambo's dominion, too, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the whole
stinkin' show needs to be blown up, like that scene in
Platoon
when the suicide
bomber runs into the command room of the Americans during the night raid. Beauty
scene...and their faces! If Trump wants to 'splode the whole thing, perhaps for the
reason the Frontline feature asserts of him being lampooned at the 2011 White House
Correspondents Dinner, then I'm just dandy with that. Besides, your scaremongering of
The Big Orange One, intermixed with...oh wait, your whole post is that. Pure,
unadulterated scaremongering. Have you even looked at his opponent and that prospect? I
see you have warmth for the Russians in Donetsk, so why wouldn't you want to take a
chance with Trump? He has repeated his respect for Russia and their leadership, DESPITE
the negative effect that the fruits of propaganda in recent years would entail. He has
gone out on a limb for Russia.
And I respect that.
At the very least, I have heard someone mention, maybe on the Saker boards, that
Donald will be so inept (perhaps due to gridlock) that he will effectively freeze the
gears of empire. I'm sure several Generals, as he says, would appreciate that, knowing
that suicide is on the horizon with Hillary. Get out of here with that "Donald's small
fingers on the red button" thing, Rufus. Take it back to Slate.
More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were
disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of
discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.
Russia with its very limited democracy
is still better off: their nobility
of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections,
though they are still heavily represented in the government.
The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the
US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump
, is hated by the political establishment,
by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are
hated.
I think she was being sarcastic. She was talking to a trade union and - probably - this
was not meant to become public.
The so called "right to work" is highly popular in the
US. It means trade unions cannot force their membership on you when you work in
unionized industries.
German trade unions never did this. When there is a strike you simply do not get
paid. Union membership is kind of insurance. In industries like the car industry (or
airlines, transport) employers cannot keep services running with non unionized labor.
So when Hillary turns against the "right for non union membership" she is doing
something in support of the labor bureaucracy unpopular to something like 75 percent of
the population. It is useless anyway as this seems state regulated.
Neither Obama nor Sanders seem to have fallen into a similar trap.
Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have
never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break
patterns of history that have held since 1860.
We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the
expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator,
making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack
Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started
the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out
his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who
not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an
opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to
meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to
start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too
close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a
murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump
represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150
years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.
and
I think the fact that he's a bit of a maverick, and nobody knows where he stands on
policy, because he's constantly shifting. I defy anyone to say what his immigration
policy is, what his policy is on banning Muslims, or whoever, from entering the
United States, that's certainly a factor. But it's more his history in Trump
University, the Trump Institute, his bankruptcies, the charitable foundation, of
enriching himself at the expense of others, and all of the lies and dangerous things
he's said in this campaign, that could make him a precedent-shattering candidate.
and for some sanitiy in who to vote for
and, you know, I've seen this movie before. My first vote was in 1968, when I was the
equivalent of a millennial, and lots of my friends, very liberal, wouldn't vote for
Hubert Humphrey because he was part of the Democratic establishment, and guess what?
They elected Richard Nixon.
Re: the academic with the perfect record of predicting presidential races.
" We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a
murderous, hostile foreign dictator. "
This has to be the best proof yet that the establishment is totally delusional and
has gone off the deep end. This "murderous hostile dictator" to quite a few in this
country seems to be the only grownup in the room. God help us with our "betters"
thinking like this, we are in for a real shit storm.
It seems Clinton left a classified briefing book in her room at a Moscow hotel a while
back. I guess we are lucky that it wasn't the infamous nuclear football.
"... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
"... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
"Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting
Republican. They're just going to offer a different
reason for doing it, when asked.
I will bet all the
money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's
pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our
lifetimes, be a time when he feels compelled by his
principles to vote for a Democratic candidate for
federal office over a Republican one.
And finally, I note that someone above asked a
version of the same question I've periodically had: What
does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians
controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to
DO with your (cultural AND legal) authority? And what
will be the status of the "other" in that brave new
world?
[NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent
to work in the
boudin
mines. And I will spend whatever percentage
of the Gross National Product it takes to hire the
Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live, from
start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will
require every citizen to watch, on pain of being
assigned to hard labor in the boudin mines. Also, I will
eat boudin. - RD]
[Connor: While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for
many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.]
That's interesting. Well, I think you're
right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their
minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal.
It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that
the primary strategy of the religious right is the
establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or
Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme
"utopian" or some would even say "totalitarian" position
of religious conservatives and not "conservative" in any
sense that I understand "Conservatism".
Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that
goal to "a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of
Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable
from the moment of conception, and that the traditional
family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health.", but even in that he regards it as
only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what
a "traditional" family is would need some definition.
If nothing short of establishing the City of God on
earth would secure the comfort of some Christians then
that is a pretty high bar and you have every right to
feel insecure… as do the rest of us.
I would be curious to know how many of your
co-religionists on these boards share your view? And how
many would reject it?
Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great
interest, although I often disagree with you. For
example, I don't think anybody of any political
persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or
those who espouse it. Indeed, I think many people will
be delighted if all Christians would exercise the
Benedict Option. A lot of people are tired of the
Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in
order to impose Christian views of morality. A lot of
people believe that there should be a separation of
church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense
of having no state-established religion, but also in the
general sense that morality should be a private matter,
not the subject of politics.
[NFR: That's
incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws
are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality
is going to be reflected in law. It is unavoidable. -
RD]
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been
responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump.
Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that
Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be
more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that
you fret about over and over?
Sharpton isn't
running for president and I didn't vote for him when he
was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of
antisemitism within the black community but doubt it
comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and
nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks
and Jews. And duh, of course there's plenty of
anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending otherwise.
It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote.
I
favor strong borders but think you can do so without
demagoguery and appealing to people's baser instincts
and hatreds, which is what Trump does. I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to
recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long
as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the
presidency.
Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance,
because if your vote is based on which candidate is best
with religious liberty and the right of Christians to
live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous:
Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.
The author of
this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is
why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are
absolving yourself from the consequences of political
engagement by acting like you can stay firm on your
principles, while refusing to choose from the only two
real sides on offer. That choice is the messy business
of politics, and inevitably imperfect because politics
is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because you
are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the
politics business whether you realize it or not.
What you have not abandoned, but I believe should
when it comes to the topics of politics, is the public
square.
You recognize that your generation failed to fight.
You very clearly have no intention of fighting even now.
You have decided to build a Benedict Option because you
think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In
fact, I heartily approve.
But other people have chosen differently. They have
chosen to fight. Donald Trump for one. You might not
like his methods. But he's not willing to see his
country destroyed without doing everything he can to
stop it. He's not alone. Many people are standing up and
recognizing that though the odds are long, they owe it
to their children and grandchildren to stand up and be
counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.
The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your
active demonization of those who actually have the
temerity to fight for their country instead of
surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with
you.
Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong
metaphysically and they may be wrong ethically, but they
are right about some very important things – things that
you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of
conservatives were very, very wrong on. Rather than
admit that, you want to stand back from the fight,
pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil
your hands voting for one of the two candidates who have
a shot to be our president, and acting like you're a
morally superior person for doing so.
You should focus on the important work of building
and evangelizing for BenOp, and leave the field of
political discourse to those who are actually willing to
engage in the business of politics.
"I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to
recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long
as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the
presidency."
So basically this boils down to you
asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of
what we can see with our lying eyes?
Yeah, no thanks.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so
many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that
doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double
intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible
for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you
ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's
Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you
fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly
why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:
-"On a
practical level, that means that I will no longer vote
primarily on the social issues that have dictated my
vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for
candidates who will be better at protecting my
community's right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage
oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I
concluded that libertarianism and either the current
Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral
convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian
America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of
elected officials in the Republican Party have the
backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face
of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how
the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the
protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to
protect the rights of people to do things that undermine
the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll
protect the rights of a cultural minority such as
traditionalist Christians than I have in either the
Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. White people will be
in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie
to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of
being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to
be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a
Republic if our government creates the conditions for a
thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live
an independent existence. The vast majority of
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even
higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development)
are increasingly being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put
out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that
the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade,
health care and social assistance, waitresses and
bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are
part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods
than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive
independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34
live with their parents than independently with spouses
and children of their own. It is also why many people
now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.
As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus
a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I
recognize that government provides many crucial
services. But it is unproductive to have too many
bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without
a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable.
Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are
ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well.
His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to
descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this.
Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued
by radical ideologies like communism, regional
separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as
well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain,
though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly
Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was
irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the
other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was
never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died,
Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and
the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind
only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost
overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked
what he thought his most important legacy was. He
replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat,
but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in
Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World
economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also
look increasingly like those of a Third World country.
Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an
American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy
process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom
Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling
for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon
of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast
off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have
had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can
keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive
market where more people get their news from such as
Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the
PC police, and generally stood for these same 6
principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished
within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you
think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three
ring show prevents the charges against him from finding
any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle
instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to
answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all
it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC
charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model
for future conservative candidates when running in a
nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them.
If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy
you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who
support him. Are we as a people really capable of being
citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be
manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me,
during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring
this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did
my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at
the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their
lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any
standard, conditions then were worse for the white
working class than is the case today, and yes, my
grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked
for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and
suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of
religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side
as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe
that is true for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all
this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and
ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a
piece of the pie and a good part of the white working
class cannot stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the
fact that so very many Americans support him, whether
wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they
close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in
and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the
annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the
hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian
elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under
what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against
the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has
now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the
rebels be swift and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then
we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it,
there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites,
conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply
to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance
outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is
taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent
out of shape when employees have the audacity to say
"happy holidays" at the department store. As made
apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and
vigilant about the real threats and the direction the
culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of
"Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like
Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the
legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car
production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in
America will lose their jobs because the production will
be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the
problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not
helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative
now active in the game will not drop out. They may not
like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than
they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed.
They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their
pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between
Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a
presidential election into a referendum regarding the
media's ability to shape public opinion and direct
"purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are
waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the
Republicans in national elections, but in a primary
situation, I will vote for the Republican who can
best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even
if he's not 100 percent on board with what I
consider to be promoting the Good. If it means
voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or
the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem
at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives
voted before Trump?
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone
can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now
whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture
refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very
particular program pursued by conservatives,
traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain
that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values
has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the
hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and
whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in
the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot
low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents
anything it is the fact that the base of the party was
not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian
values we thought they were representing are hardly
recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and
increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is
supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what
that regime looks like? Behind all the theological
underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a
ground-level political and legislative program for
achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly
participate in look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is
responsive to politics. What political order does the
Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have
now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect
our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He
says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem
to have made and are still making a lot of noise for
people who want to be left alone so I have to assume
they want something over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What
minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or
changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or
equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that
allows Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no
value in speculating or establishing a number) are
deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we
don't have time to be politically correct mantra is
ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped
establish the concept of politically correctness) steals
a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the
"irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd,
calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker,
Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like
any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to
"run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of
the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable
folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously)
not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER
rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to
the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics –
especially national campaigns are not so much about
which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his
wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white
nationalist groups and with his willingness to
appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own
advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary
to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob
violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has
unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled
even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The
possibility that he might win has left me wondering
whether I even belong in this country any more, no
matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks
globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end,
where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to
our political realignment.
After all, will the white
liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black
leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being
activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay
activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of
black culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if
you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other
Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable
hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter;
(2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests,
not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters;
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd
world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign
peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always
been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result
many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of
nationalist movements and have a natural tendency towards
globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump
as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of
fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue)
will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love
for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme
is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I
understand where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas
assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural
dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into
irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture,
you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But
there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option
community can and should be politically active,
primarily at the local level, where the most good can be
done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on
that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute
hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns
for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing
about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was
is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which
Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump
but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben
Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi
Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what
would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who
were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom,
gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for
improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing
stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA,
Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the
"forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to
multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and
women that make up the backbone of our economy have been
forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them
- with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both
parties reminds me of this quote from C.S.
Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question:
whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that
democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to
occur to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational
corporation, but it is nothing more or less than
Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it,
like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and
imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well,
evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It
wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose.
And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen
in America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many
traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly,
or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a
book for Christians in general. And if you get into too
many specifics, you are going to run right into the
enormous theological and philosophical differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social
Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your
minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian
culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we
can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at
that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman
Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first
Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the
High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that
Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a
simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic"
presidential electoral race (if limited to the two
"mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no
presidential election tout court, ergo there is no
democracy at the presidential election level in the
U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in
any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a
distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a
different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice,
and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite
appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not
been absent, but they have not been the driving force in
politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke
the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's
goal was not to overturn the existing social order but
rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time.
Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic
or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles
Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast,
Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM,
alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever
wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business.
Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect,
since there appears to be no daylight between her and
the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great
notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture,
THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies
from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one
that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with
double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid
contractors suing her… of course that's because she
never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared
bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in
Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines for building violations,
declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of
thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at
sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them
have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I
wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less
president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze,
and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against
almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous
warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to
rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a
white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite
a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't
count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned
businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood
denounces then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing
"white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're
mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until
the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very
few black riots that went deep into a "white"
neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room
know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach
test for pundits peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its
not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do,
its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I
did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in
a long time, but that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see
going forward. First, cultural conservatives will
seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a
like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning
elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than
to winning the battle for the political soul of America.
…"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the
Republican party is conservative. It started drifting
from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an
entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with
winning to advance policies tat have little to do with
conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club.
And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my
conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going
to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they
would want to design communities not already defined by
scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon
politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate
their (our) understanding of what politics is and what
it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than
statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a
post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no
longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who
claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives
in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the
Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to
become more worldly will change that. What may happen is
that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal
will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as
threats to the common good, simply because of the views
we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to
our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat
to the state, unless that threat is just to their
participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians
hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a
realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then
most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them
altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do
what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on
the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their
thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them
they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of
it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be
active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as
well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not
everyone is called to the contemplative life in a
monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the
church as a whole these days individually called to
different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the
Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader
community. It just means there has to be some
intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a
hostile larger culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You
have to pay attention to which orders you are referring
to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat
from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk
wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun
particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of
monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to
recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer
and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out
into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of
headaches because they competed with priests and bishops
in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded
since the 18th century are quite different from the old
orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides
reading some of the religious rules of life of many of
these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the
differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original
founding of religious orders even back then was also
considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy
and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't
some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have
entirely too little knowledge of the development and
maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies
or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are
advanced by someone with as appalling a character as
Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards,
Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's
important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it
since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half
of a long post written in response, but got too caught
up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also
determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The
conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of
identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics
in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle
Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete
what I had written rather than save it and come back to
finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended,
I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo
and behold, the top story was this one about Jane
Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics
in the animal kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well."
I don't defend his vile character. I
readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend
to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character"
issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to
other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election
cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt
and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does
not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best
light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by
someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of
traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers
are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any
"cultural change" possible which might reassure
Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which
has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary
posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak
of what government and technology will do to the lives
of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future -
vision that would allow me to relax would be a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the
Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of
conception, and that the traditional family is the best
promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.
I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton
defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her
support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund
these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The
amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion
in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that
33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the
U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing
in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the
charges against him from finding any fertile soil to
grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given
to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the
people he represents have been fed up with the some of
what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good
stead save or his speaking style which is far more
formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches
through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity.
His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if
his message was counter to where most people are already
at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a
supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know
what lies I have used to support him. We have some
serious differences, but I think my support has been
fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most
have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much
hidden about Mr. Trump.
The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue
of staff accountability. Has he neglected to pay his
staff, is this just an organizational natter or complete
nonsense.
The other factor that has played out to his
advantage are the news stories that repeatedly turn out
false, distorted or nonexistent.
The media already in the credibility hole seems very
content to dig themselves in deeper.
I didn't see the post where you disavowed
liberals as well, so I was too hasty with the "your
side"
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings
about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge
any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot
in this country.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the
snippets that you have shared with usm particularly in
the posts on Norcia and other communities already
pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of
conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off
relationship with national politics. Conservative
Christians danced with the Republican Party for a
long-time, but past a certain point had to stop
pretending that the Republican Party cared more about
them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them,
danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and
social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But
the point is I think you are returning to a better
place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with
the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to
sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so
many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that
doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double
intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible
for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you
ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's
Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you
fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly
why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:
-"On a
practical level, that means that I will no longer vote
primarily on the social issues that have dictated my
vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for
candidates who will be better at protecting my
community's right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage
oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I
concluded that libertarianism and either the current
Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral
convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian
America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of
elected officials in the Republican Party have the
backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face
of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how
the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the
protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to
protect the rights of people to do things that undermine
the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll
protect the rights of a cultural minority such as
traditionalist Christians than I have in either the
Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. White people will be
in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie
to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of
being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to
be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a
Republic if our government creates the conditions for a
thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live
an independent existence. The vast majority of
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even
higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development)
are increasingly being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put
out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that
the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade,
health care and social assistance, waitresses and
bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are
part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods
than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive
independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34
live with their parents than independently with spouses
and children of their own. It is also why many people
now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.
As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus
a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I
recognize that government provides many crucial
services. But it is unproductive to have too many
bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without
a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable.
Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are
ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well.
His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to
descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this.
Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued
by radical ideologies like communism, regional
separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as
well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain,
though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly
Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was
irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the
other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was
never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died,
Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and
the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind
only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost
overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked
what he thought his most important legacy was. He
replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat,
but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in
Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World
economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also
look increasingly like those of a Third World country.
Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an
American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy
process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom
Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling
for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon
of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast
off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have
had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can
keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive
market where more people get their news from such as
Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the
PC police, and generally stood for these same 6
principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished
within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you
think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three
ring show prevents the charges against him from finding
any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle
instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to
answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all
it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC
charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model
for future conservative candidates when running in a
nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them.
If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy
you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who
support him. Are we as a people really capable of being
citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be
manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me,
during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring
this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did
my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at
the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their
lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any
standard, conditions then were worse for the white
working class than is the case today, and yes, my
grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked
for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and
suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of
religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side
as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe
that is true for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all
this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and
ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a
piece of the pie and a good part of the white working
class cannot stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the
fact that so very many Americans support him, whether
wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they
close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in
and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the
annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy at the
hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian
elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under
what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against
the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has
now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the
rebels be swift and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then
we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it,
there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites,
conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply
to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance
outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is
taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent
out of shape when employees have the audacity to say
"happy holidays" at the department store. As made
apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and
vigilant about the real threats and the direction the
culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of
"Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like
Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the
legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car
production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in
America will lose their jobs because the production will
be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the
problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not
helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative
now active in the game will not drop out. They may not
like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than
they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed.
They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their
pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between
Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a
presidential election into a referendum regarding the
media's ability to shape public opinion and direct
"purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are
waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the
Republicans in national elections, but in a primary
situation, I will vote for the Republican who can
best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even
if he's not 100 percent on board with what I
consider to be promoting the Good. If it means
voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or
the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem
at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives
voted before Trump?
If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that
happens to us.
Don't blame the progressives when Trump says
something about defaulting on the US debt and the stock
market crashes.
Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead
us by leaps and bound in science and technology because
we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right and center,
then decide to get rid of all government-funded
research.
Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't
get built, Trump says "who, me? I never promised
anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid
coal-mining jobs.
And don't blame the progressives when you discover
Trump has sold you down the river for a song, refuses to
appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS judges, and throws the
First Amendment out the window.
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone
can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now
whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture
refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very
particular program pursued by conservatives,
traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain
that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values
has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the
hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and
whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in
the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot
low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents
anything it is the fact that the base of the party was
not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian
values we thought they were representing are hardly
recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and
increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is
supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what
that regime looks like? Behind all the theological
underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a
ground-level political and legislative program for
achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly
participate in look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is
responsive to politics. What political order does the
Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have
now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect
our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He
says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem
to have made and are still making a lot of noise for
people who want to be left alone so I have to assume
they want something over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What
minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or
changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or
equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that
allows Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no
value in speculating or establishing a number) are
deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we
don't have time to be politically correct mantra is
ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped
establish the concept of politically correctness) steals
a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the
"irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd,
calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker,
Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like
any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to
"run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of
the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable
folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously)
not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER
rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to
the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics –
especially national campaigns are not so much about
which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his
wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white
nationalist groups and with his willingness to
appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own
advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary
to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob
violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has
unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled
even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The
possibility that he might win has left me wondering
whether I even belong in this country any more, no
matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks
globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end,
where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to
our political realignment.
After all, will the white
liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black
leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being
activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay
activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of
black culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if
you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other
Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable
hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter;
(2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests,
not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters;
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd
world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign
peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always
been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result
many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of
nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards
globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump
as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of
fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue)
will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love
for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme
is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I
understand where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas
assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural
dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into
irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture,
you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But
there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option
community can and should be politically active,
primarily at the local level, where the most good can be
done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on
that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute
hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns
for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing
about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was
is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which
Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump
but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben
Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi
Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what
would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who
were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom,
gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for
improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing
stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA,
Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the
"forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to
multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and
women that make up the backbone of our economy have been
forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them
- with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both
parties reminds me of this quote from C.S.
Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question:
whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that
democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to
occur to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational
corporation, but it is nothing more or less than
Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it,
like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and
imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well,
evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It
wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose.
And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen
in America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many
traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly,
or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a
book for Christians in general. And if you get into too
many specifics, you are going to run right into the
enormous theological and philosophical differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social
Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your
minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian
culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we
can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at
that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman
Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first
Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the
High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that
Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a
simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic"
presidential electoral race (if limited to the two
"mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no
presidential election tout court, ergo there is no
democracy at the presidential election level in the
U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in
any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a
distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a
different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice,
and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite
appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not
been absent, but they have not been the driving force in
politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke
the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's
goal was not to overturn the existing social order but
rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time.
Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic
or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles
Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast,
Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM,
alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever
wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business.
Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect,
since there appears to be no daylight between her and
the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great
notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture,
THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies
from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one
that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with
double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid
contractors suing her… of course that's because she
never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared
bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in
Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines for building violations,
declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of
thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at
sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them
have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I
wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less
president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze,
and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against
almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous
warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to
rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a
white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite
a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't
count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned
businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood
denounces then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing
"white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're
mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until
the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very
few black riots that went deep into a "white"
neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room
know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach
test for pundits peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its
not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do,
its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I
did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in
a long time, but that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see
going forward. First, cultural conservatives will
seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a
like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning
elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than
to winning the battle for the political soul of America.
…"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the
Republican party is conservative. It started drifting
from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an
entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with
winning to advance policies tat have little to do with
conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club.
And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my
conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going
to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they
would want to design communities not already defined by
scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon
politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate
their (our) understanding of what politics is and what
it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than
statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a
post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no
longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who
claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives
in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the
Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to
become more worldly will change that. What may happen is
that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal
will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as
threats to the common good, simply because of the views
we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to
our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat
to the state, unless that threat is just to their
participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians
hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a
realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then
most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them
altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do
what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on
the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their
thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them
they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of
it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be
active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as
well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not
everyone is called to the contemplative life in a
monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the
church as a whole these days individually called to
different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the
Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader
community. It just means there has to be some
intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a
hostile larger culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You
have to pay attention to which orders you are referring
to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat
from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk
wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun
particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of
monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to
recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer
and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out
into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of
headaches because they competed with priests and bishops
in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded
since the 18th century are quite different from the old
orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides
reading some of the religious rules of life of many of
these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the
differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original
founding of religious orders even back then was also
considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy
and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't
some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have
entirely too little knowledge of the development and
maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies
or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are
advanced by someone with as appalling a character as
Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards,
Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's
important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it
since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half
of a long post written in response, but got too caught
up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also
determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The
conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of
identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics
in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle
Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete
what I had written rather than save it and come back to
finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended,
I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo
and behold, the top story was this one about Jane
Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics
in the animal kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well."
I don't defend his vile character. I
readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend
to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character"
issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to
other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election
cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt
and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does
not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best
light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by
someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of
traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers
are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any
"cultural change" possible which might reassure
Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which
has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary
posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak
of what government and technology will do to the lives
of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future -
vision that would allow me to relax would be a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the
Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of
conception, and that the traditional family is the best
promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.
I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton
defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her
support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund
these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The
amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion
in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that
33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the
U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing
in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the
charges against him from finding any fertile soil to
grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given
to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the
people he represents have been fed up with the some of
what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in
good stead save or his speaking style which is far more
formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches
through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity.
His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if
his message was counter to where most people are already
at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a
supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know
what lies I have used to support him. We have some
serious differences, but I think my support has been
fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most
have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much
hidden about Mr. Trump.
Hillary Clinton,
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and
political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious
beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to
joining a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with
winning elections and very concerned with maintaining
our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather
than to winning the battle for the political soul of
America.
[NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book
group. - RD]
I'm going to start and end with globalization by
referring to G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
"This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing
and so much more interesting than the Pagan empires;…If
anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let him
consider the curious fact that, under Christianity,
Europe has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism
is a perfect example of this deliberate balance of one
emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the
Pagan empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman
citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow
and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and
swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let
the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman
may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will
make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity
called Germany shall correct the insanity called
France."
Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the
northern hemisphere for the southern, that Europe has
tried union, the USA has been into interventionism, and
globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be
one world citizens doesn't have a balancing instinct.
And Chesterton was deliberating about the balancing
instinct.
I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab
at the Benedict Option, I have just one quibble with his
analysis: "And Trump is the first American candidate to
bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been."
Wrong. Trump is definitely
not the first candidate to do this. He was preceded by
Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much
more coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly,
Buchanan ran at a time when the post-1989 order was in
its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem with
it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate
that presented the six ideas and attracted a
non-negligible amount of support. Trump is not a pioneer
in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.
I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very
likable as a person, but the last 25 years have been
disastrous politically in Western nations and it's time
to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the
Western hegemon and exports its ideas across the
Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases like "critical
whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards
a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new
options in Europe as well.
In any case these are exciting times…however it turns
out, we may well be living through years which will be
seen as decisive in retrospect.
This comment on the Politico article stood out to me:
"It is its very existence, and mantra, for a religion
the advertise itself, something that is frowned upon as
being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and
contrary to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only
embrace this, they help their religion advertise."
In other words, this commenter admits that he
believes it "incredibly un-American" for religions to
"advertise," and, by extension, to even exist (he says
advertising is religion's "very existence.")
The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."
We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin
country.
Red brick
September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'
Perhaps
due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are
not good for the Jews. The online troll army of out and
proud anti-semites can't help but contribute to this.
Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich
up there on the podium advocating for the latest free
trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our "states that
begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that,
you betcha!
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test
for pundits peddling a point of view. Funny how he
proves so many intellectuals right about so many
contradictory things, all without having to take
responsibility for any particular idea.
Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this
blog that there is something sacred about sex between
one woman and one man, and them married. God bless him
for staying true.
So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please
forgive me)…..Let the LBGTQIA remain true to their
identity, that the married male/female may be more
safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise
out of these excesses( despite those who want us to be
all the same). The absurdity called LBGTQIA shall
correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
Trump is certainly not unraveling
identity politics. He's adding another identity to the
grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.
You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity
politics or not, its proponents are obviously not
adding
to the grievance industry, but attempting to
defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are
not
to blame for everything, and no, they
shouldn't
continue to pay for it. To merely maintain
that position is sufficient to be labeled as a white
supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.
Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become
more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your
name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece
as well.
Dear mainstream media: you have lost your
credibility because you are incapable of skeptical
inquiry into your chosen candidate or official
statistics/ pronouncements.
Your dismissal of
skeptical inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is
nothing but a crass repackaging of the propaganda
techniques of totalitarian state media.
Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a
democracy and are a disgrace to investigative,
unbiased journalism.
You have substituted
Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical
journalism. We can only hope viewers and advertisers
respond appropriately, i.e. turn you off.
Here's the mainstream media's new mantra:
"skepticism is always a conspiracy or a hoax."
The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM are now one
agency.
The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz.
How soon before the Wicked Witch starts to melt?
Do people who are willing to accept characterization as
"angry, provincial bigots" still have any right to
political self-expression? Believe it or not, it's an
important question.
Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a
particular religion, race, social background, etc., to
form exclusive political alliances, moving away from
traditional broad-based party politics.
I find it odd
that the party of older white straight Christian men
accuses the party of everyone else to be guilty of
"identity politics". It just doesn't make any sense.
(1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
(2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a
policy.
(3) national interests, not so-called universal
interests, matter; Depends. National interests matter,
but if they are all that matters… I think you just
stepped outside the Gospels.
(4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for
evil.
(5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME
things need to be more decentralized, some don't, and we
need to have an honest conversation about which is
which.
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated. ABSOLUTELY!
All in
all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual
short list of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a
Nice Short Checklist.
Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write
our own lists.
You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and,
for the most part I do) and nonetheless recognize that
an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan like Trump–a
pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing
but his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to
advance them. His latest birther charade shows him for
the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.
The
cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced
consumer capitalism and globalism becomes ever more
apparent. Large scale organizations are, by their very
nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've
believed so for the better part of my life now. It's
that belief that lead me to the University of Rochester
and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and, subsequently to
MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has
lead me to distrust both the corporate order and
politics as a means to salvation. I certainly don't
consider myself a conservative, at least not in the
shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that
I will ever vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm
not a liberal in the American sense of the term either
because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty much
pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a
long time, felt pretty homeless in the American
wilderness.
I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog,
Rod, though I disagree deeply with many of your views.
As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the Benedict
Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a
certain soul sickness that politics, consumption, and
technology can't cure.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
As one
of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for
Trump, perhaps I can shed some light on the reasons. It
has nothing to do with his alleged desire to enforce
borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything
to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's
no Christian. He's pure heathen.
Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod
attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist
groups and with his willingness to appropriate their
anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's
dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone
familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To
anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and
probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that
he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong
in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I
might feel for the folks globalism has left behind.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They seem to
think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world
immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.
Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some
historical figure who was rather bad for the Jews. I
wonder who that could be?
And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel
an "uncontrollable" emotion
is
a touch
anti-Semitic.
But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the
game away by consistently referring to 1989 as the state
of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination of
globalization and identity politics. Of course neither
was new. Admittedly globalization received a boost by
the end of the Cold War, but it's been well underway for
a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's
"morning in America." But there was no such morning.
"Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and
abolitionists would have been accused of, if the term
had been invented back in their day. Are there stupid
things done and said under the umbrella of "identity
politics"? Of course. That doesn't make the
discrimination and mistreatment that led to such
politics any less real.
The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though,
is that the Trump he describes (or, more accurately,
wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The Trump he describes
has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that
Mitchell thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas
of Marx and Nietzsche, because the real-world Trump has
no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.
I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler
wasn't mentioned once.
It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal
cliches and denunciations of heretics so between
drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"
Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist,
homophobic" so I could feel morally superior to stupid
white people in fly-over country?
Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is
that while I agree with his six points, his hope that
Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply misguided.
Like most political scientists, he knows little about
history.
For thise who think Trump is harmless, here
he is, tonight, riffing on his
Clinton assassination fantasies.
Where is Leni
Reifenstahl when you need her? Trump is no pragmatist.
He's no Christian. And he's no leader.
If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does
this bode poorly for conservative Christians? If the
BenOp is primarily a reaction to the post-1989 culture,
shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need
for a BenOp?
[NFR: Well, if there were a candidate
advocating these positions who WASN'T Donald Trump, I
would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump is
thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not
be under any illusion that casting a vote for that
person - again, even if he or she was a saint - would
mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is
premised on the idea that we are living in
post-Christian times. The Ben Op is a religious movement
with political implications, not a political movement.
Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on
a change of government in Washington. - RD]
This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that
is understood all else makes sense. It is also a
manifestation about what happens when a word is
overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of,
"Ask us if we care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and
we like it."
It backfires.
The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it
looks.
I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from
either party are projecting an awful lot onto a
seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have firm
convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This
objective he pursues by being willing to say whatever he
thinks will get him the sale, with no regard for decency
or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected, who
knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what
he perceives to be the majority view. Those hoping for a
sea change are engaged in some pretty serious wishful
thinking, I think.
@T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle
of Nationalism vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is
Identity Politics in its purest form and that is why the
Globalist oppose it.
Globalists use identity politics,
that is true. However, they bear no love for the
identities they publicly promote. Rather, they
dehumanize them, using them as nothing more than weapons
against Nationalism.
As a Nationalist I will support and promote my
Nation(People), but I also recognize the inherent right
of other Nations(Peoples) to support and promote
themselves.
I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to
us, what that other person has planned for us
deplorables:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources
and political will and deep-seated cultural codes,
religious beliefs and structural biases have to be
changed."
After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize
us in society, complete with cheers from those at her
back, that is just about all that counts.
Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments
from Oct. 2001: "There's been conglomeration under six
principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and
these six companies have control of the world! … That's
what the new world order is. They control culture, they
control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11
was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"
It is quite amusing to contemplate how it works. An
average progressive (I mean average progressive with
brains, not SJW) comes with a genuine desire to
criticize Trump for his ideas. But he faces something
"deplorable" almost at once. "Deplorable" things are
known to immediately trigger the incessant spouting of
words like "bigot", "racist", logically impossible
"white nationalist", "chovinist", fascist and on, and
on, and on. No way to control it, completely automatic.
A deep-seated emotional reaction all the way long from
uncle Freud's works. And, as a result, Trump's actual
ideas remain largely uncriticized. And the ideas that
are often mentioned but seldom confronted with a
coherent critical response are almost impossible to
defeat. So yes, his ideas are thinly buried in his
rhetoric. There are simply too many of them for being
suddenly blurted out even without all of the above,
especially when similar ideas simultaneously blossom all
around Europe. French Revolution, Russian Revolution,
American Progressivism – the West is simply tired of two
centuries of modernist and postmodernist experiments.
And now the giant starts awakening. Though, instead of
"thinly buried", I would rather prefer "subtly woven"
metaphor.
sure the ground is moving – it was inevitable.
Everything changes.
But is Trump a harbinger of the change? Or is he – or
rather his supporters – simply hoping to stop change –
to bring back some nostalgic notion of 1950's America?
Trump is a con man who seeks only his own
aggrandizement. He is not really committed to any
refutation of the existing order. He lies constantly and
when one set of lies stops working he switches to a new
set of lies. He was forced to back down on birtherism –
which is what propelled him to the attention of the Fox
News conspiracy folks. And let us be clear – birtherism
is fundamentally racist. Now he has to give up his
birther position so he can get the votes of a few soccer
Moms. So he creates new lies – Hilary started
birtherism. It becomes impossible to keep up with his
lies. And as he bounces from one new set of realities to
another – he takes his supporters along with him. He is
playing a con – making a sale.
Now he suggests that the Secret Service detail give
up their guns and then "Let's see what happens to her".
There is no great movement with him – just a demented
man who thrives on the adoration of the crowds and will
say anything however obscene to get those cheers.
The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him.
Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a
Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by
people like Trump ?
Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected
the Brexit and EU jitters to what's going on in the US –
and I think Mitchell is right about that. When we were
still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall
one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a
Trump presidency might look. He figured Trump would be
very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing Obamacare, and
focusing on our interests here at home.
"I will vote primarily for candidates who will be
better at protecting my community's right to be left
alone."
I've been voting that way for years; mostly
Republicans, but a good sprinkling of Democrats as well.
Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right
ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it
were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote
for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us
lately?
"Conservative principles" espoused by wonks
and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a
divine right, transferable across time and culture.
Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing
with ideas? Think back to George W. Bush's speech at the
2004 Republican convention, perhaps the most idea-driven
speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning a
neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a
gorilla perform opera.
I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume
that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out
of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant
enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions.
A recently heard description of Trump – a fat, orange,
poorly educated, intellectually shallow pathologic liar,
bigot, and narcissistic jerk.
Well, I don't know that
much about the guy, but some of that description seems
correct. He rarely reads, he says, gets his information
from "the shows", so if there are intellectual
preparations which we should expect in a presidential
candidate he falls short, but those preparations usually
create some intellectual bias, which he doesn't seem to
have on any important matter. So maybe just "muddling
through" problems as they arise will work. One has to
hope so, because whatever ability to do that he has is
all he's got.
"cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and
political certainties"
Sorry, that is just silly. Only
political junkies and culture warriors even care about
stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living
in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just
doesn't.
People don't live their lives thinking about any of
those things cited. What would it mean to you or me to
have "borders matter"? Ford just announced they were
moving some more production to Mexico. That decision
WILL affect the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does
anyone honestly think that anyone… even a President
Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course not.
It is silly to assert otherwise.
Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against
the notion that you are looking at permanent change.
JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade benefits
everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away.
In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both
those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors.
BenOp
is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now
active in the game will not drop out. They may not like
the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they
like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.
Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no
detailed policy or approach attached to them, policies
or approaches that seemingly change on a whim (evidence
that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of
them), or has no realistic political path for making
those ideas a reality.
"That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may
at times be, leads us toward: A future where states
matter."
With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles
into a truth he might not have intended - The "state" -
as in "administrative state" - is going to continue
growing even under Trump.
Given the increasing intolerance of our society for
traditional values, that's all Christians need to know.
Clint writes:
"Hillary Clinton,
'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political
will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious bel:efs
and structural biases have to be changed.
Uh Oh --
We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables."
"He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone
familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To
anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and
probably especially if, he loses."
Given the amount
violence and disruption your side has caused this year
this accusation really should be laughable. Trump
supporters aren't out beating up Clinton supporters and
making sure they can't have a rally in the wrong
neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't
threatening student journalists with violence on their
own campuses, or getting on stage with speakers they
dislike and slapping them.
It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob
violence while the liberal establishment denies it or
excuses it.
This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the
preliminary BenOp talking points.
We need Thomas Paine's
Common Sense
for our
age, for these are times that try men's souls. Problem
is this: Paine's citizenry were 90% literate, unified by
culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70%
literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural,
and amused to death.
Hillary just can't help herself. Her political instincts (and those of her
campaign) are just plain stupid. Everything backfires on her, probably because
she is living in a fantasy bubble called the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).
The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods
are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed
to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians
and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government
windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes
the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the
pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return
for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.
This strange and bizarre parallel universe is where all the political elites
hang out – isolated from Main Street America (and the commoner world as well).
The denizens of the PIC are very wealthy, very cozy with each other and one
of they live in the most dense echo chamber on the planet.
Hillary is just the epitome of Political Correctness dripping from the center
of the PIC.
But now Hillary has created a massive movement in the country, outside the
PIC. She has created " The Deplorables! ".
It is becoming a badge of honor to be feared and attacked by the PIC. It
is becoming fun to watch members of the PIC just collapse into lick-spittle
rage, as the voters reject their self-anointed brilliance.
For example :
Hillary, you recently labeled me - and millions of Americans like me
- "deplorable."
I am not deplorable. What I am is your worst nightmare: a woman, a mother
and a voter who sees right through you.
In your remarks to an LGBT group, with liberal millionaire mouthpiece
Barbra Streisand hosting your appearance, you waved your invisible scepter
and banished millions of people from respectable society, just because you
felt like it.
"Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,"
you said last Friday. "There are people like that, and [Trump] has lifted
them up."
Well, I'm concerned about national security, supportive of law enforcement,
and a believer in traditional marriage. How does that make me "deplorable?"
You may be a deplorable if you just got your car inspected.
If you're deployable, you're definitely deplorable.
If you wake before noon, if you call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists,
if you don't have an Obamaphone and you don't believe that global warming
is "settled science" - can you say deplorable?
…
Or if while watching the second Monday night NFL game you were less irritated
by the streaker than you were by all the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick
on the pre-game show.
You may be a deplorable if you resent training your H1-B replacement.
Or the fact that the Earned Income Tax Credit is NOT earned.
Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.
Hillary wanted to brand Trump Voters as subhuman (well, at least below the
standards of the PIC). But by giving them a name, she gave them a rallying point,
a joint cause.
Honestly, how could she have helped Trump even more? Given her political
skills I am sure we will find out soon enough.
The author fails to distinguish between two (intermixed) faction so of Repugs
-- neocons and neolib.
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are "enemy within" the Republican Party as
they have nothing to do with either republicanism or conservatism. They are Empire
builders. Neocons should be purged as they definitely do not belong. They already
started moving to Democratic party (Robert Kagan is a typical case) ...
Neoliberals are more complex and difficult case. They are the essence of the
current republican establishment, the face of the party. Here a Stalin-type purge
(Trotskyites were very influential before the purge) is necessary to get rid of
this faction, in order to return the Party to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt
roots...
Notable quotes:
"... Only one outcome in November would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists, elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects depend. ..."
"... Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. ..."
"... Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power. Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance. ..."
"... "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security hawks who cannot countenance Trump. ..."
"... It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter level. Support for Trump among Republicans is around 90 percent , according to recent polling. ..."
"... those whose livelihood depends on conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump loss. ..."
"... In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives. Hillary is their only hope. ..."
Obviously there is . It has been developing for years, and could be seen
to some extent in earlier presidential cycles, but was opened fully and dramatically
by the improbable candidacy of Donald Trump. Only one outcome in November
would forestall a complete, likely irreversible fracturing: the election of
Hillary Clinton. Thus, many elite Republican operators-including lobbyists,
elected officials, and pundits-are desperately hoping that Trump loses. Some
are limited to expressing this desire privately, for fear of alienating the
conservative voters on whom their continued electoral (or business) prospects
depend.
Republicans who were especially devoted to Marco Rubio during the primary-whose
interests align with the perpetuation of the party's status quo-are perhaps
the most strident in their wish for a Trump defeat. (Recall that the few
areas where Rubio prevailed earlier this year included
Washington, D.C., and its
Northern Virginia suburbs-locations that have profited immensely from the
post-9/11 military-industrial buildup.)
Under a President Trump, such establishmentarian actors would lose power.
Maybe they'd retain some measure of influence within the administration, as
Trump exerted his deal-making prowess to bring them into the fold, but their
interests would no longer be paramount. Other forces would have propelled Trump
to victory, and he would likely prioritize them in governance.
After Trump's election, many conservative organs and their congressional
allies would position themselves as Trump's enemies, coordinating with Democrats
on key initiatives to block his agenda. At the same time, other conservative
organs, in tandem with Trump-sympathetic factions of the Republican congressional
caucus, would coalesce around the sitting president and support his agenda.
Eventually, these factions' coexistence within the same movement would prove
untenable, practically and philosophically.
The result would be less overall leverage for traditional Republican institutions
in Washington, the kind whose existence is premised on the maintenance of the
decades-old "three-legged stool" formula-social conservatism, free markets,
and hawkish foreign policy-for entrenching conservative political power. Trump
would saw off one or two of the stool's legs, and there would be no replacing
them, at least not in the short term.
Though a Trump win would necessitate a realignment, it would not happen overnight.
Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation
would not undergo a sudden ideological makeover; institutional inertia precludes
such rapid transformation. Change would happen slowly, but surely. A president
always influences the ideological composition of the body politic-within his
own party and the opposition. For instance, Obama's eight-year term has reshaped
the Democratic Party coalition, and also engendered commensurate shifts within
internal Republican dynamics.
Under a President Trump, the Republican congressional caucus and affiliated
movement-conservative entities would be constantly wracked by internecine warfare
of the type that was on vivid display during the GOP primaries. No doubt Ted
Cruz would be at the forefront of whatever organized conservative opposition
to Trump emerged as he positioned himself for a likely presidential primary
challenge in 2020. Cruz would be well situated to pick up the mantle of "true
conservatism"-however that ended up getting defined-and he would be able to
(convincingly) blame establishment-GOP squishes for fostering the conditions
that gave rise to Trump. "True conservatives" of the Cruz variety could
feasibly come to include the free marketeers and conventional national-security
hawks who cannot countenance Trump.
Conversely, under a President Hillary, movement conservatives could comfortably
unify the party in opposition to their longstanding enemy, papering over the
ideological divisions exposed by Trump. Such divisions would still exist, but
dealing with them would be subordinated to the overriding task of undermining
Hillary. Movement conservatives could easily discount Trump's nomination and
failed general-election run as an aberration, and revert more or less back to
form. They'd probably proffer some superficial initiatives to address "Trump_vs_deep_state"
at the urging of prominent columnists-the somber panel discussions would be
manifold-but "Trump_vs_deep_state" as a political program is so ill-defined and malleable
that, in practice, any remedial actions wouldn't amount to much.
It should also be noted that while this schism is especially pronounced
among elites-such as those with sinecures at prestigious think tanks, or lobbyists
with powerful clients to please-the divisions are far less evident at the voter
level. Support for Trump among Republicans is
around 90 percent , according to recent polling. In addition to keeping
the traditional movement-conservative coalition intact, a Trump loss would narrow
the gap between ordinary Republican voters and conservative elites, who could
unite in their disdain for Hillary. Thus, those whose livelihood depends on
conservative-movement institutions have added incentive to root for a Trump
loss.
In sum, Trump poses an existential threat to American movement [neo]conservatives.
Hillary is their only hope.
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
BenOp is unrealistic. conservative Christians will not stop voting Republicans.
Notable quotes:
"... Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked. ..."
"... Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. ..."
"... A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality. ..."
"... A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics. ..."
"... So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks. ..."
"... Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). ..."
"... Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway. ..."
"... So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity? ..."
"... Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over? ..."
"... Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. ..."
"... "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?" ..."
"... My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well. ..."
"... Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces. ..."
"... Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this ..."
"... When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain. ..."
"... The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete. ..."
"... "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it." ..."
"... "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up." ..."
"... Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses. ..."
"... The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it. ..."
"... We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. ..."
"... "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known. ..."
"... Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump. ..."
"... The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same." ..."
"... Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence. ..."
"... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
"... Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately? ..."
"... "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture. ..."
"... In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors. ..."
"... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
"Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican.
They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked.
I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's
pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our lifetimes, be a time when
he feels compelled by his principles to vote for a Democratic candidate
for federal office over a Republican one.
And finally, I note that someone above asked a version of the same question
I've periodically had: What does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians
controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to DO with your (cultural
AND legal) authority? And what will be the status of the "other" in that
brave new world?
[NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent to work in the
boudin
mines. And I will spend whatever percentage of the Gross National Product
it takes to hire the Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live,
from start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will require every
citizen to watch, on pain of being assigned to hard labor in the boudin
mines. Also, I will eat boudin. - RD]
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ,
which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state
which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas).
In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no
longer be necessary.]
That's interesting. Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the
readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political
goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary
strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic,
theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme "utopian"
or some would even say "totalitarian" position of religious conservatives
and not "conservative" in any sense that I understand "Conservatism".
Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that goal to "a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from
the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter
of sound moral, cultural and economic health.", but even in that he regards
it as only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what a "traditional"
family is would need some definition.
If nothing short of establishing the City of God on earth would secure
the comfort of some Christians then that is a pretty high bar and you have
every right to feel insecure… as do the rest of us.
I would be curious to know how many of your co-religionists on these
boards share your view? And how many would reject it?
Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great interest, although
I often disagree with you. For example, I don't think anybody of any political
persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or those who espouse
it. Indeed, I think many people will be delighted if all Christians would
exercise the Benedict Option.
A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain
political power in order to impose Christian views of morality.
A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church
and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established
religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private
matter, not the subject of politics.
[NFR: That's incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws
are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality is going to be
reflected in law. It is unavoidable. - RD]
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring
up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do
you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and
over?
Sharpton isn't running for president and I didn't vote for him when he
was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of antisemitism within the black
community but doubt it comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and
nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks and Jews.
And duh,
of course there's plenty of anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending
otherwise. It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote. I favor strong
borders but think you can do so without demagoguery and appealing to people's
baser instincts and hatreds, which is what Trump does.
I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger
the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to
keep him out of the presidency.
Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance, because if your vote
is based on which candidate is best with religious liberty and the right
of Christians to live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous:
Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.
The author of this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is
why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are absolving yourself
from the consequences of political engagement by acting like you can stay
firm on your principles, while refusing to choose from the only two real
sides on offer. That choice is the messy business of politics, and inevitably
imperfect because politics is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because
you are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the politics business
whether you realize it or not.
What you have not abandoned, but I believe should when it comes to the
topics of politics, is the public square.
You recognize that your generation failed to fight. You very clearly
have no intention of fighting even now. You have decided to build a Benedict
Option because you think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In
fact, I heartily approve.
But other people have chosen differently. They have chosen to fight.
Donald Trump for one. You might not like his methods. But he's not willing
to see his country destroyed without doing everything he can to stop it.
He's not alone. Many people are standing up and recognizing that though
the odds are long, they owe it to their children and grandchildren to stand
up and be counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.
The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your active demonization of
those who actually have the temerity to fight for their country instead
of surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with you.
Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong metaphysically and they may be
wrong ethically, but they are right about some very important things – things
that you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of conservatives were very,
very wrong on. Rather than admit that, you want to stand back from the fight,
pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil your hands voting for
one of the two candidates who have a shot to be our president, and acting
like you're a morally superior person for doing so.
You should focus on the important work of building and evangelizing for
BenOp, and leave the field of political discourse to those who are actually
willing to engage in the business of politics.
No lengthy cerebral essay will cover up the fact that Trump is a crude,
belligerent, and unethical con-artist. Clinton for her part has her own
problems but both are a blot on American history. No amount of blabber will
put a shine on Trump's character. He is for himself, and no one else.
"I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger
the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do
to keep him out of the presidency."
So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your
gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have
shared with us particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities
already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative
Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.
Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time,
but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party
cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly).
Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon
(big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed.
But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting
to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation
that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up
more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you
care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic
than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly
become a libertarian:
-"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily
on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will
vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's
right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments
presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and
either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for
in a decidedly post-Christian America.
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in
the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty
in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the
Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights
of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more
faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist
Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge,
and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to
pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens
of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like
Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government
creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence.
The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and
even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly
being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are
in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders,
and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs
produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This
is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently
with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must
work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they
are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian.
I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive
to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle
class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and
resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make
it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He
achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by
radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism
had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not
really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean
neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists
and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When
Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest
growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy
almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he
thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco
was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy
in Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too
surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third
World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's,
Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia
has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK
had no qualms about calling for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere,
the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity
they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep
themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people
get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the
WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally
stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at
all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an
undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational
manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges
to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative
candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in
the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are
we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are
we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?
By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class
than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one
grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst
the populace in the 1930s.
The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic
Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout
history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment?
Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now
have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot
stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very
many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison,
or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt
necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy
at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly
is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization.
The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington
has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift
and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever
you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals
etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the
grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously.
Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the
audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent
on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats
and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America"
(while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting
the legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and
forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production
will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active
in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush
politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going
to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that
they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have
to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election
into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion
and direct "purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections,
but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best
be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent
on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting
for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain,
I have no problem at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much
agree that the traditionalists lost.
Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to
listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question
that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists
and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle
for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is,
if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were
discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low,
one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact
that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever
Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable
now.
What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what
America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that
regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding
abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program
for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in
look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics.
What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the
one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life
and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to
be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise
for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something
over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating
or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad)
Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when
his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically
correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from
the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny
barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician)
put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist,
nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton
bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters"
at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser
of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns
are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly
discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.
After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups
forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent
them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and
hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black
culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
(4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without
which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better
part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred.
As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist
movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler,
so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified
of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote
for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump
the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand
where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op
is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw
from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A
Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily
at the local level, where the most good can be done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump
merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her
ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about
her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same
sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is
growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people.
A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered
the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals
and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of
our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember
them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me
of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever
be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior"
means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve
a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that
these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is
nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein,
will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor
easily quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is
not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people
in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in
America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which
governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation,
and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete
plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you
get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous
theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ
the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look
bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church
is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It
was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until
St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum
within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race
(if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential
election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election
level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any
case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly
sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new
favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent,
but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class
conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing
social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we
might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government
under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary
and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas.
Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may
be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight
between her and the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw
from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing
her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think
she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee
who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines
for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying
up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all
of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote
for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote
for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no,
that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning
four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces
then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing
much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it
is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that
went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods
too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits
peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what
he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him.
I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but
that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First,
cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group,
unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America. …"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative.
It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band
of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have
little to do with conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that
I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their
own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already
defined by scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether,
it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics
is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft.
Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that
is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . .
."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in
Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by
some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become
more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian
spiritual revival and renewal will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common
good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out
of fidelity to our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless
that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres
christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If
christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal
will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or
you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses.
You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and
then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it,
I think Christ intended them to be active participants.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand
for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a
character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances
of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his
utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest
as well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote
for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier
this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but
got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined
that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to
harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and
America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more
rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back
to finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost
to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about
Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal
kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine
who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly
indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."
I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of
those I know who intend to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a
wash, so the choice boils down to other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents
pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment.
That does not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might
be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand
the concerns of traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change"
possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral
which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here
by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology
will do to the lives of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would
allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God
the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that
the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth
abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until
birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by
repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding
of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more
babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he
can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the
some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his
speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts)
delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections"
tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most
people are already at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a
supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him.
We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly
above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight
up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.
The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue of staff accountability.
Has he neglected to pay his staff, is this just an organizational natter
or complete nonsense.
The other factor that has played out to his advantage are the news stories
that repeatedly turn out false, distorted or nonexistent.
The media already in the credibility hole seems very content to dig themselves
in deeper.
I didn't see the post where you disavowed liberals as well, so I was
too hasty with the "your side"
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have
shared with usm particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities
already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative
Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.
Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time,
but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party
cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other
side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just
got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place,
reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange
infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up
more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you
care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic
than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly
become a libertarian:
-"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily
on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will
vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's
right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented
before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the
current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of
us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly
post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in
the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty
in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the
Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights
of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more
faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist
Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge,
and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to
pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of
a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government
creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence.
The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and
even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly
being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are
in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders,
and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs
produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This
is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently
with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must
work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they
are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian.
I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive
to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle
class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and
resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make
it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He
achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by
radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism
had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not
really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean
neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists
and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco
died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest
growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy
almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he
thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco
was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy
in Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too
surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third
World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's,
Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia
has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK
had no qualms about calling for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere,
the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity
they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep
themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people
get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the
WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally
stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at
all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an
undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational
manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges
to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative
candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in
the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as
a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply
fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working
class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class:
one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And
yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst
the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then,
but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both
side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true
for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment?
Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now
have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot
stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very
many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison,
or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt
necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy
at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly
is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization.
The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington
has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift
and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever
you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals
etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the
grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously.
Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the
audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent
on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats
and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America"
(while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting
the legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and
forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production
will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the
game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives
them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that
they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have
to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election
into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion
and direct "purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections,
but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best
be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent
on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting
for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain,
I have no problem at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?
If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that happens to us.
Don't blame the progressives when Trump says something about defaulting
on the US debt and the stock market crashes.
Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead us by leaps and bound
in science and technology because we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right
and center, then decide to get rid of all government-funded research.
Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't get built, Trump says
"who, me? I never promised anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid
coal-mining jobs.
And don't blame the progressives when you discover Trump has sold you
down the river for a song, refuses to appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS
judges, and throws the First Amendment out the window.
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree
that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the
broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program
pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is
certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been
taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart
has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent
and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a
little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then
a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the
party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values
we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what
America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that
regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding
abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program
for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in
look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics.
What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the
one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life
and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to
be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise
for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something
over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating
or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad)
Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when
his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically
correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from
the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny
barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician)
put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist,
nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton
bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters"
at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser
of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns
are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly
discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.
After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups
forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent
them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and
hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black
culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
(4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without
which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better
part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred.
As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist
movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler,
so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified
of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote
for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump
the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand
where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op
is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw
from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A
Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily
at the local level, where the most good can be done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump
merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her
ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about
her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same
sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is
growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people.
A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered
the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals
and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of
our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember
them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of
this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic
behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that
will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur
to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is
nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein,
will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not
stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in
San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America,
things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which
governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation,
and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete
plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you
get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous
theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ
the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look
bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church
is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It
was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until
St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum
within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race
(if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential
election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election
level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any
case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly
sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new
favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent,
but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class
conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing
social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we
might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government
under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary
and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas.
Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may
be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight
between her and the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw
from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing
her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think
she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee
who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines
for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying
up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all
of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote
for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote
for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no,
that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning
four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces
then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing
much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it
is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that
went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods
too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits
peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what
he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him.
I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but
that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First,
cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group,
unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America. …"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative.
It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band
of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have
little to do with conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that
I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their
own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already
defined by scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether,
it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics
is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft.
Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that
is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . .
."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in
Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by
some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become
more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian
spiritual revival and renewal will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common
good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out
of fidelity to our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless
that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres
christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If
christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal
will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or
you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses.
You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and
then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it,
I think Christ intended them to be active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has
a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians
to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the
Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to
the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world,
so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different
arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed
to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be
some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger
culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you
are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from
the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery,
or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic
history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually
focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community,
and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with
priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century
are quite different from the old orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of
the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake
of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious
orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church
hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind
of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge
of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand
for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a
character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances
of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his
utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest
as well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote
for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier
this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but
got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined
that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to
harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and
America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more
rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back
to finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost
to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about
Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal
kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine
who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly
indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."
I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of
those I know who intend to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a
wash, so the choice boils down to other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents
pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment.
That does not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might
be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand
the concerns of traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change"
possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral
which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here
by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology
will do to the lives of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would
allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God
the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that
the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth
abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until
birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by
repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding
of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more
babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he
can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the
some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or
his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts)
delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections"
tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most
people are already at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a
supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him.
We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly
above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight
up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.
Hillary Clinton, "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to joining a like-minded
Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining
our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America.
[NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book group. - RD]
I'm going to start and end with globalization by referring to G.K.Chesterton
in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
"This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing and so much more interesting
than the Pagan empires;…If anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let
him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe has broken
up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate
balance of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan
empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike;
let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental
and swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let the German remain
slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental.
We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany
shall correct the insanity called France."
Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the northern hemisphere
for the southern, that Europe has tried union, the USA has been into interventionism,
and globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be one world citizens
doesn't have a balancing instinct. And Chesterton was deliberating about
the balancing instinct.
I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab at the Benedict
Option, I have just one quibble with his analysis: "And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been."
Wrong. Trump is definitely not the first candidate to do this. He was
preceded by Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much more
coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly, Buchanan ran at a time when
the post-1989 order was in its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem
with it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate that presented
the six ideas and attracted a non-negligible amount of support. Trump is
not a pioneer in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.
I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very likable as a person,
but the last 25 years have been disastrous politically in Western nations
and it's time to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the Western
hegemon and exports its ideas across the Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases
like "critical whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards
a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new options in Europe as well.
In any case these are exciting times…however it turns out, we may well be
living through years which will be seen as decisive in retrospect.
This comment on the Politico article stood out to me: "It is its very existence,
and mantra, for a religion the advertise itself, something that is frowned
upon as being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and contrary
to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only embrace this, they help their
religion advertise."
In other words, this commenter admits that he believes it "incredibly
un-American" for religions to "advertise," and, by extension, to even exist
(he says advertising is religion's "very existence.")
The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."
We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin country.
Red brick
September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'
Perhaps due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are not good
for the Jews. The online troll army of out and proud anti-semites can't
help but contribute to this.
Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich up there on the podium
advocating for the latest free trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our
"states that begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that, you
betcha!
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling
a point of view. Funny how he proves so many intellectuals right about so
many contradictory things, all without having to take responsibility for
any particular idea.
Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this blog that there
is something sacred about sex between one woman and one man, and them married.
God bless him for staying true.
So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please forgive me)…..Let the
LBGTQIA remain true to their identity, that the married male/female may
be more safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise out of these
excesses( despite those who want us to be all the same). The absurdity called
LBGTQIA shall correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
Trump is certainly not unraveling identity politics. He's adding another
identity to the grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.
You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity politics or
not, its proponents are obviously not adding to the grievance industry,
but attempting to defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are
not to blame for everything, and no, they shouldn't continue
to pay for it. To merely maintain that position is sufficient to be labeled
as a white supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.
Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a
small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to
become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well.
Dear mainstream media: you have lost your credibility because
you are incapable of skeptical inquiry into your chosen candidate or
official statistics/ pronouncements. Your dismissal of skeptical
inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is nothing but a crass repackaging
of the propaganda techniques of totalitarian state media.
Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a democracy and are a
disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism. You have substituted
Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical journalism. We can
only hope viewers and advertisers respond appropriately, i.e. turn you
off.
Here's the mainstream media's new mantra: "skepticism is always
a conspiracy or a hoax." The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM
are now one agency.
The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. How soon before
the Wicked Witch starts to melt?
Do people who are willing to accept characterization as "angry, provincial
bigots" still have any right to political self-expression? Believe it or
not, it's an important question.
Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a particular religion,
race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving
away from traditional broad-based party politics.
I find it odd that the party of older white straight Christian men accuses
the party of everyone else to be guilty of "identity politics". It just
doesn't make any sense.
(1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
(2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a policy.
(3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; Depends.
National interests matter, but if they are all that matters… I think you
just stepped outside the Gospels.
(4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for evil.
(5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME things need to be
more decentralized, some don't, and we need to have an honest conversation
about which is which.
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated.
ABSOLUTELY!
All in all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual short list
of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a Nice Short Checklist.
Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write our own lists.
You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and, for the most part
I do) and nonetheless recognize that an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan
like Trump–a pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing but
his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to advance them. His latest
birther charade shows him for the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.
The cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced consumer
capitalism and globalism becomes ever more apparent. Large scale organizations
are, by their very nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've
believed so for the better part of my life now. It's that belief that lead
me to the University of Rochester and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and,
subsequently to MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has
lead me to distrust both the corporate order and politics as a means to
salvation. I certainly don't consider myself a conservative, at least not
in the shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that I will ever
vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm not a liberal in the American
sense of the term either because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty
much pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a long time, felt
pretty homeless in the American wilderness.
I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog, Rod, though I disagree
deeply with many of your views. As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the
Benedict Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a certain
soul sickness that politics, consumption, and technology can't cure.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
As one of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for Trump, perhaps
I can shed some light on the reasons. It has nothing to do with his alleged
desire to enforce borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything
to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's no Christian. He's
pure heathen.
Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They
seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop
pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to
them.
Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some historical figure who
was rather bad for the Jews. I wonder who that could be?
And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel an "uncontrollable"
emotion is a touch anti-Semitic.
But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the game away by consistently
referring to 1989 as the state of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination
of globalization and identity politics. Of course neither was new. Admittedly
globalization received a boost by the end of the Cold War, but it's been
well underway for a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's
"morning in America." But there was no such morning.
"Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and abolitionists would
have been accused of, if the term had been invented back in their day. Are
there stupid things done and said under the umbrella of "identity politics"?
Of course. That doesn't make the discrimination and mistreatment that led
to such politics any less real.
The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though, is that the Trump
he describes (or, more accurately, wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The
Trump he describes has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that Mitchell
thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas of Marx and Nietzsche, because
the real-world Trump has no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.
I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler wasn't mentioned once.
It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal cliches and denunciations
of heretics so between drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"
Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist, homophobic" so I could feel
morally superior to stupid white people in fly-over country?
Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is that while I agree
with his six points, his hope that Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply
misguided. Like most political scientists, he knows little about history.
For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on
his
Clinton assassination fantasies. Where is Leni Reifenstahl when you
need her? Trump is no pragmatist. He's no Christian. And he's no leader.
If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does this bode poorly
for conservative Christians? If the BenOp is primarily a reaction to the
post-1989 culture, shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need
for a BenOp?
[NFR: Well, if there were a candidate advocating these positions who
WASN'T Donald Trump, I would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump
is thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not be under any
illusion that casting a vote for that person - again, even if he or she
was a saint - would mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is
premised on the idea that we are living in post-Christian times. The Ben
Op is a religious movement with political implications, not a political
movement. Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on a change
of government in Washington. - RD]
This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that is understood all
else makes sense. It is also a manifestation about what happens when a word
is overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of, "Ask us if we
care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and we like it."
It backfires.
The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it looks.
I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from either party are
projecting an awful lot onto a seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have
firm convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This objective he
pursues by being willing to say whatever he thinks will get him the sale,
with no regard for decency or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected,
who knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what he perceives
to be the majority view. Those hoping for a sea change are engaged in some
pretty serious wishful thinking, I think.
@T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle of Nationalism
vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is Identity Politics in its purest form and
that is why the Globalist oppose it.
Globalists use identity politics, that is true. However, they bear no
love for the identities they publicly promote. Rather, they dehumanize them,
using them as nothing more than weapons against Nationalism.
As a Nationalist I will support and promote my Nation(People), but I
also recognize the inherent right of other Nations(Peoples) to support and
promote themselves.
I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to us, what that other
person has planned for us deplorables:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize us in society,
complete with cheers from those at her back, that is just about all that
counts.
Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments from Oct. 2001: "There's
been conglomeration under six principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and
these six companies have control of the world! … That's what the new world
order is. They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt
of September 11 was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"
Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected the Brexit and EU
jitters to what's going on in the US – and I think Mitchell is right about
that. When we were still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall
one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a Trump presidency might
look. He figured Trump would be very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing
Obamacare, and focusing on our interests here at home.
"I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting
my community's right to be left alone."
I've been voting that way for years; mostly Republicans, but a good sprinkling
of Democrats as well.
Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within
Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would
still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately?
"Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists
culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy
was a divine right, transferable across time and culture.
Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing with ideas? Think
back to George W. Bush's speech at the 2004 Republican convention, perhaps
the most idea-driven speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning
a neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a gorilla perform
opera.
I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a
one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions.
"cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties"
Sorry, that is just silly. Only political junkies and culture warriors
even care about stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living
in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just doesn't.
People don't live their lives thinking about any of those things cited.
What would it mean to you or me to have "borders matter"? Ford just announced
they were moving some more production to Mexico. That decision WILL affect
the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does anyone honestly think that
anyone… even a President Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course
not. It is silly to assert otherwise.
Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against the notion that you
are looking at permanent change. JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade
benefits everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away. In
fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of
Trump's economic advisors.
BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the
game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives
them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.
Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no detailed policy or approach
attached to them, policies or approaches that seemingly change on a whim
(evidence that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of them), or
has no realistic political path for making those ideas a reality.
"That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter."
With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles into a truth he might not
have intended - The "state" - as in "administrative state" - is going to
continue growing even under Trump.
Given the increasing intolerance of our society for traditional values,
that's all Christians need to know.
Clint writes:
"Hillary Clinton,
'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious bel:efs and structural biases have to be changed.
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables."
"He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings,
pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed
dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses."
Given the amount violence and disruption your side has caused this year
this accusation really should be laughable. Trump supporters aren't out
beating up Clinton supporters and making sure they can't have a rally in
the wrong neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't threatening student
journalists with violence on their own campuses, or getting on stage with
speakers they dislike and slapping them.
It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob violence while
the liberal establishment denies it or excuses it.
This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the preliminary BenOp talking
points.
We need Thomas Paine's Common Sense for our age, for these are
times that try men's souls. Problem is this: Paine's citizenry were 90%
literate, unified by culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70%
literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural, and amused to death.
Joseph R.
Murray II
Guest
columnist
Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to
Popeye: Columnist.
When the term paleo-conservative is floated in conversation,
most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism
- a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited
government, nonintervention, economic nationalism and Western
traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.
The history-making campaign of
Donald Trump
is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a
time when hubris was heroic and the truth, no matter how blunt,
was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not
play by the rules of modern politics.
And as the nation saw the top-tier
GOP
candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw
Trump, unapologetic and confident, alongside eight candidates
clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.
The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is
creating throughout the political establishment. The very first
question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to
the eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run.
Trump refused.
But why should he blindly accept the party's unknown nominee?
If Jeb Bush receives the nomination, the GOP will put forth a
candidate who favors amnesty and is weak on trade, supportive of
Common Core and unable, if not unwilling, to come out from under
his brother's failed foreign policy.
In refusing to take the pledge, Trump was honest, and it is
his honesty that has made his campaign endearing. Trump has no
secrets and turns what many consider mistakes into triumphs.
The incident with
Megyn Kelly
is a prime example. When moderator Kelly
confronted Trump about his past comments about women, Trump
refused to apologize and told Kelly there is no time for
political correctness.
In the aftermath, Trump blasted Kelly's performance and
landed in hot water. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon, Trump
said that "[y]ou could see there was blood coming out of her
eyes. Blood coming out of her - wherever."
The "wherever" part created a firestorm. Though vague, Trump
detractors claimed that the "wherever" part meant Trump was
implying Kelly was menstruating, while Trump claimed he was
referring to her nose. Trump's version made more sense, but to a
political class desperate to derail him, the headlines went with
the former.
Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political
obituary. But while they were busy scribbling, post-debate polls
showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their
orders from headquarters and deflecting to the Donald.
Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically
correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political
incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.
"So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump
tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time
and energy on nonsense!"
Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating
Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized immigrant in New
Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of
30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko and setting her body on fire. In
the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not
lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.
Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality.
Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead
of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the
sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the
keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the
type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party
establishments are too afraid to provide.
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was
Pat Buchanan
in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused
Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire
Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment
in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he
was the Last of the Mohicans.
Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump
has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and
self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.
This reality is what makes him the new face of
paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president.
Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a
conservative commentator and a former official with Pat
Buchanan's 2000 campaign.
"... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
"... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive
social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a
series of transformative economic reforms. In
Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes
of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In
Part 1 of an interview with the
Institute for New Economic
Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways
of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding
unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.
Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi
in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?
Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon
realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and
there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual
climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since
liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely
sensed.
There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business
people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in
a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society.
Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads
about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had
access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own
lives.
Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were
very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very
interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions,
publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas.
When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations,
the philosophy of change was just amazing.
LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during
Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they
do business?
RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial
businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves,
and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach.
They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings
they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.
But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely
different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because
their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the
forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so
they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank
and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local
hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal
politics and global capital.
So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The
sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often
done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated
relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic
people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.
The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills.
They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set
is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting
about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a
world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business
and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots
of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American
real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country
and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they
are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and
everything.
This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central
Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise
money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some
government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy,
they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.
LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say,
the Gilded Age?
RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these
guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there
was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state
declared a kind of protracted war on them.
Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think
it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have
the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things
have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important
in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating
these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit
in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.
Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did
a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests
will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because
continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a
bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places
are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what
they can do.
LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global
capitalism?
RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991,
including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information.
What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich
and poor alike.
One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are
richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything
is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center
stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less
prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held
by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation
is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more
hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information,
contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.
Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or
60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable.
People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for
almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all
these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society
are not elected and hugely wealthy.
Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management
consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style
middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country
is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure
in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely
wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that
dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private
townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the
ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape
that's being wrought and he has no part in it.
If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this
landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just
kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?
All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think,
this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage
and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent,
I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like
India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been
told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse.
So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what
we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus
is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not
as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at
the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.
The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain
invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture
to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have
200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians
are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities
and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities
are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle
their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They
don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature,
but to come back and run the family business.
LP: What is changing between men and women?
RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will
they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be
out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going
to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent,
sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash
of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?
This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically
successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in
the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a
set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both
in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely
on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they
didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the
culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.
Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole
caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without
a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets
are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because
I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across
India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they
can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits
– social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's
a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism
as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think
society is falling apart.
LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic.
How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?
RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created
a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India
and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs
left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty
city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled
in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the
other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million
were killed in that event.
The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses,
properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered,
raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories
and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have
a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them
again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial.
They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life.
They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only
our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build
high walls around our houses.
When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none
of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state
has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent
and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused
within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful
and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when
they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.
Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households
and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're
one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's
something which is the greatest horror in the universe.
The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business
as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are
very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming
much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have
a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources.
Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil
and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.
In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events
like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history.
Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system,
these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust.
They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't
expect necessarily.
Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important
for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of
consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a
number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee
that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India
and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when
suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.
For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt
that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they
gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the
West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone
loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of
consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have
to deal with some of those forces again.
LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt
a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?
RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context
- can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own
financial elite.
It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think
what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle
class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated.
Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always
been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize
capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking
is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have
these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance
are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in
places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap
to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.
Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire,
founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient
Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English
and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.
"... "emails" has been the most frequently recalled word in Americans' reports of news about Mrs. Clinton - the exceptions being the week of the Democratic convention, when emails fell to second place, and this past week when "pneumonia" and "health" eclipsed emails. ..."
"... the research shows that the relevance of Mrs. Clinton's emails is very real in the minds of average Americans. ..."
"... Americans are certainly not ignoring the election and they appear to be closely following what constitutes the campaign as it unfolds. As a result, the public may be learning about the candidates' temperament, character, personality and health issues, but from what they tell us, Americans aren't getting much in the way of real substance. ..."
Since July we have asked more than 30,000 Americans to say exactly what
it was they read, saw or heard about the two major party candidates over the
past several days. The type of information getting through to Americans
varies significantly depending on whether the candidate in question is Mr.
Trump or Mrs. Clinton. Americans' daily reports about Mr. Trump are directly
tied to what he is doing and saying. If Mr. Trump talks about Muslim parents
and their son who was killed in action, that's what the public remembers. If
he goes to Mexico or Louisiana, that's what they recall reading or hearing
about him. If Mr. Trump calls President Obama the founder of the Islamic
State, "ISIS" moves to the top of the list of what Americans tell us they
are hearing about the Republican candidate.
What Americans recall hearing about Mrs. Clinton is significantly less
varied. Specifically - and to an extraordinary degree - Americans have
consistently told us that they are reading and hearing about her handling of
emails while she was secretary of state during President Obama's first term.
In eight of the past 10 weeks, "emails" has been the most frequently
recalled word in Americans' reports of news about Mrs. Clinton - the
exceptions being the week of the Democratic convention, when emails fell to
second place, and this past week when "pneumonia" and "health" eclipsed
emails.
When Matt Lauer of NBC News questioned Clinton about her emails for a
third of the allotted time during the commander-in-chief forum on MSNBC
earlier this month, he was criticized for focusing on an irrelevant issue.
But the research shows that the relevance of Mrs. Clinton's emails is
very real in the minds of average Americans.
... ... ...
For as long as I have been involved in election year research, the
absence of serious discussion of issues and policies by the candidates has
been a source of disgruntlement with the campaign process. So far, it
doesn't look like 2016 is providing an exception. Americans are
certainly not ignoring the election and they appear to be closely following
what constitutes the campaign as it unfolds. As a result, the public may be
learning about the candidates' temperament, character, personality and
health issues, but from what they tell us, Americans aren't getting much in
the way of real substance.
The moderators of the coming series of debates will most likely focus
directly on the candidates' positions on issues. This may shift what
Americans tell us they are learning about the candidates, and if so, it
could signal a significant upgrade in the way the process is working.
But that also means that a lot still depends on the candidates themselves
and how they end up shaping the contours of the debates.
This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be
improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the
system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since
the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted
out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which
identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
"... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
"... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
"... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
"... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
"... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
"... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
"... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
"... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
"... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
"... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation
of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the
world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that
he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders
matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called
universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization
matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated.
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment
with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided
us toward, siren-like, since 1989.
That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens,
working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas
do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has
yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been.
Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled,"
and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other
hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is,
Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets
into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts
it:
This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather
that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative
"principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.
Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition
who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince
themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something
profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep
instincts emerging from within the body politic:
What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak"
is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There
are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say
it, for fear of ostracism.
They think that identity politics has gone too
far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place
where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale
political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally,
be no place for the state.
Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump
placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some
other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence
in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization"
and identity politics has done them much good.
There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen
to the GOP.
Read the whole thing.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be
insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the
Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.
Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five
days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by
bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed,
Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is
a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really
bad and stuff."
Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting
Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement
in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater
than a 6 year old.
Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying
to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric:
borders matter;
immigration policy matters;
national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
entrepreneurship matters;
decentralization matters;
PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them.
I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is
definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear
sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.
The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood
as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more
of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented
by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war
profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every
other voter.
Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves
them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process
of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people,
or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution,
which I fear greatly.
Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or
accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting
process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return
to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves
for a rude awakening.
I'm certainly not
the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD,
perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but
what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity
politics.
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and
deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases
have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
"... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
"... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
"... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
"... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
"... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
"... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
"... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
"... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
"... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
"... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
"... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
"... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites,
Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.
John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's
embrace of him intolerable.
Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has
his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.
What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir
Putin is raised?
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle
Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood.
He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman
did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?
Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran,
and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and
go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.
Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that
really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin
democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea
naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from
Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.
When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo,
and dismiss Havana's protests?
Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine.
But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect
a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
... ... ...
Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy,
and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?
... ... ...
Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans
rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered
with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand
Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required
it.
Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How
does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping
"thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?
>>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah
of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea
buttressed could be even more pertinent)
Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians
and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like
idiots or puppets.
Rubio
and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the
time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in
a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged
in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.
Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray
and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically
mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even
more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia
as a friend. That makes no sense at all.
"Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest
of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just"
believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions
in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be
the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.
As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because
Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to
interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has
visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may
reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat
in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin
to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic
narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage
his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia
fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that
portends more Global Cop wreckage.
John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would
Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"
Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in
Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh,
and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro
as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.
Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not
"favor him." The two terms should not be confused.
There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US
should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in
the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.
"During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of
Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed
to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's
favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either
way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter,
does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school
of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which
suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty
nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's
a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually
the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op
of all time.
"From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"
"Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo,
17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former
President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control
of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western
elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy".
This is how they determine an "enemy".
As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel
they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism
was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.
If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the
globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed
with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian
and supports the family.
Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are
lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the
reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed
any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented
as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.
What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is
reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.
You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for
neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
Notable quotes:
"... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
"... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted
by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely
opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and
age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!
Main Street vs Wall & K Street.
The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)
is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside
itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will
be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has
shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive
health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations
to pay off.
The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden
democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices
this cycle
any better than this --
Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton said, "there is
absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of
state and the Clinton Foundation."
On Monday of this week,
ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch
of emails reveal that there was a connection, and
it was cash .
…
The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served
as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while
Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges,
Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed
from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances,
Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation
throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin.
In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of
her job at the State Department was taking care of "
Clinton family matters ."
This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business,
big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while
our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive
to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access
(and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without
results).
The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming
anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their
worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken
the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to
control what people knew and thought.
Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to
cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan
gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into
law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican
Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated,
ever since.
Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential
primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing
the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished
any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials.
He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed
to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing
ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact
that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to
support a primary process that excludes them.
…
In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take
a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead
of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary
of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one
of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting –
which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy
altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described
it as a "convenience" for voters.
The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large
swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:
In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel
well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major
party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves
as politically independent .
That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents
(68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will
win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?
I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty
much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am
a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP.
She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method
to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly
and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew
that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders
would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes
that things get ugly.
Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open
primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces
the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and
the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.
Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system
is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee
took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted
in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to
win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put
together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning
years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.
The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the
sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various
levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and
shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.
It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note
how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government
leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the
ballot:
During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party
would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the
process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the
convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local
communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate,
and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each
be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential
nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen
times.
Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable
to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC
– not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a.
– voters) there is no democracy –
just a variant
of communism:
During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized
all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism,
which put factories and railroads under strict government control,
collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of
industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion,
Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give
a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until
1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction
of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil
War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties
were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as
the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher
members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline
.
Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major
industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for
a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the
healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See
a trend yet?
This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels
of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber
alles!
Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super
Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony
to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...
The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly
represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on
capitalism and the free market.
His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer
that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person
who wants to impose government on the individual.
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
As I've stated many times, Obama the
narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping
about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral
contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the
mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to
hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic
supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted
ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends
more Global Cop wreckage.
"... These OFF episodes occur without warning when the patient is in the ON state and at unexpected times ..."
"... OFF episodes can have a tremendous negative impact on patients' daily lives. The potential for unexpected loss of motor function or the unpredictable onset of benefit of one's PD medications can result in patients' avoidance of certain social settings and hinder performance of simple daily tasks such as eating, bathing and dressing. ..."
"... I think the fact she bounced back so quickly and put on a great act at Chelsea's three hours after being unable to walk would indicate this is not pneumonia plus dehydration plus overheating (overheating seems a big stretch given the temps that morning). So the question is, if not those then what? ..."
"... And no, I think the campaign's credibility is pretty much shot on any and all excuses they provide which do not stand up to simple logic and common sense. ..."
This neurological disorder, by definition, most frequently occurs as
the result of long-term (usually at least 3 months duration) or high-dose
use of
antipsychotic
drugs.
…
In some cases, an individual's legs can be so affected that walking becomes
difficult or impossible
…
Respiratory irregularity, such as grunting and difficulty breathing,
is another symptom associated with tardive dyskinesia, although studies
have shown that the prevalence rate is relatively low
These OFF episodes occur without warning when the patient is in the ON
state and at unexpected times. The goal of levodopa therapy is to maintain
a constant blood level of levodopa that is expected to result in a constant
supply of levodopa to the brain and, therefore, a constant level of dopamine
and dopaminergic stimulation. However, the brain does not utilize dopamine
at a constant rate. Changes in activity level or changes in mood such as
agitation or anxiety result in an increased use of dopamine. The brain then
depletes the reserves of dopamine, and more time is required to rebuild
that dopamine deficit. As a result, a patient in the ON state can unexpectedly
and suddenly turn OFF when their normal PD medications are typically effective.
OFF episodes can have a tremendous negative impact on patients' daily
lives. The potential for unexpected loss of motor function or the unpredictable
onset of benefit of one's PD medications can result in patients' avoidance
of certain social settings and hinder performance of simple daily tasks
such as eating, bathing and dressing. Further, a patient's varying
consumption of dopamine from variable "daily stresses" as well as the loss
of dopaminergic cells, exacerbates the frequency, duration and severity
of OFF episodes.
Does Hillary suffer from one of these? No clue – not a doctor. But I
think the fact she bounced back so quickly and put on a great act at Chelsea's
three hours after being unable to walk would indicate this is not pneumonia
plus dehydration plus overheating (overheating seems a big stretch given the
temps that morning). So the question is, if not those then what?
And no, I think the campaign's credibility is pretty much shot on any
and all excuses they provide which do not stand up to simple logic and common
sense. Hillary's responses to the Benghazi and Email issues torched that.
Not to mention the fact we heard a string of conflicting and changing reasons
all day long. This indicates we are not done yet hearing more "clarifications".
Like Hillary regularly gets so dehydrated she faints :
Bill Clinton's attempt on Monday at downplaying his wife's recent fainting
spell may have backfired.
During an interview with CBS News' Charlie Rose, the former president
said that Hillary Clinton has "on more than one occasion" had a fainting
episode after becoming "severely dehydrated."
So this HAS happened before – guess that is why
the secret service were so well choreographed.
"... Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal" (read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends! ..."
Everyone is proposing those toxic DNC emails that roiled the Democrat National
Convention this weekend were hacked by Russia. Which I actually do not doubt.
But please understand, to hack into a system someone needs to be sloppy and
"invite" the hackers in! So how is it that HRC emails and DNC emails were both
exposed to the voters during this election year?
Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from
the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services.
[64] It is known that hackers in Russia were aware of
Clinton's non-public email address as early as 2011 . [71]
It is also known that Secretary Clinton and her staff were aware of
hacking attempts in 2011, and were worried about them. [72]
In 2012, according to server records, a hacker in Serbia scanned
Clinton's Chappaqua server at least twice , in August and in December
2012. It was unclear whether the hacker knew the server belonged to Clinton,
although it did identify itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com
. [64] During 2014, Clinton's server was the target
of repeated intrusions originating in Germany, China, and South Korea.
Threat monitoring software on the server blocked at least five
such attempts. The software was installed in October 2013, and for three
months prior to that, no such software had been installed.
Now we know for a fact the "personal" side of Clinton's electronic communication
was to pave the way for her second run at the presidential election. In fact,
the server originated in 2008 to support her first run. Clinton would not want
"Personal Political" emails to become public – for many reasons! (especially
to hide any nexus between
Bill's speaking fees and State Department Policy decisions ).
Everyone knows Politicians set up one account for "official business" and
one for political business – a separation required by federal law. So if HRC
was in communication with politicians and the DNC, it was through her personal
server!
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private
commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in
regular contact from her personal account . We also assess that
Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a
large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal
e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and
receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile
actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.
Rooster coming home to roost! I would wager the reason the DNC email
server was compromised was due to the lack of security on Clinton's "personal"
(read political) email server. HRC left the IT Security door open and that exposed
everyone she was in contact with – government, DNC and friends!
Coming on the heels of Brexit and in tandem with many other
anti-globalist-cronyism movements, it is a societal reaction
that has been building for years (since Bush 2, and definitely
since the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the Political
Elite). When the elite bend and break the rules to line their
pockets, and the masses end up being severely financially
impacted in return, then there is going to be a visceral
response to those hoarding the nation's riches and
opportunities.
What is amazing is the depth of ignorance (or compliance) in
the news media. Take Jonathan Chait at the New York Times, who
has been in near constant apocalyptic fit since the "debate" on
national security.
Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But Normal
Politician. Why Can't America See That?
My only quibble with Chait is I would title it:
Hillary Clinton Is a Flawed But
Typical
Politician.
Why Can't America See That?
My only response is to inform Chait of the blatantly
obvious: Of course we see Clinton as a typical and flawed
politician!!
So were the establisment GOP contenders in the primary. So
are all the power brokers in the Political Industrial Complex (PIC).
So is the pliant, PIC-suckling news media.
Why do you think Clinton is sinking in the polls during an
election cycle where the vast majority of voters on Main Street
USA see the country heading in the wrong direction? Does this
translate to "more of the same please?"!!
Why would a swath of voters who sees their slice of the
American Dream being trampled want more of the same policies
from the "globalist" Political Elite sitting behind their gated
communities in their posh mansions?
Of course we see her that way. She is simply not what the
country wants – nor deserves.
The PIC should realize that when their best argument is "the
worst of us is better than anyone from outside the PIC" – they
have hit rock bottom. And it is sooooo obvious!
"... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
"... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
"... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
"... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's
role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need
to be vigilant against all warmongers.
It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop
at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report
were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of
what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.
There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going
to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families
of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the
report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take
a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove
through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that
the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK
military action were far from satisfactory."
As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory'
is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable
force."
Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair
to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the
public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet
over.
Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot
Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that
day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press
conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central
to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing
for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.
The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the
establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq
despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions.
The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in
February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had
already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".
The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of
Iraq and region, is staggering.
Guccifer 2.0
's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending the London conference.
Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.
The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of
that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?
The answer turns out to be, not a lot.
Here's an overview of the directories and files:
/CIR
Financial investment data.
/CNBC
Financial investment data.
/DNC
Redistricting documents.
/DNCBSUser
One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?
/documentation
A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software.
Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years
ago.
/DonorAnalysis
Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.
/early
Early voting analysis.
/eday
Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.
/FEC
Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from
2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at:
http://fec.gov .
/finance
More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit
cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.
September 14th, 2016
Guccifer 2.0 dropped
a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there
was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting
an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction
with 7z and unrar .
Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .
I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for
that tomorrow.
I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.
While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted
out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity
in the United States.
Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is
alternately published between the House and Senate.
The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and
support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches
of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments,
or in other words by direct appointment.
These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates,
policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials.
Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs.
The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential
relationship with the agency head or other key officials.
Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price
is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using
the free online version at:
Plum Book 2012
.
The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and
then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.
However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select
"find," the resulting screen looks something like this:
To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the
details:
If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:
How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief
of Mission, Monaco?
Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort,
attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality
also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services
and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.
Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."
Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to
assist you in finding the total.
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $72399.00
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $22300.00
Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions – $36052.00
Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing
$40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the
grand total of:
$130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.
Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions
starting in the year 2000.
Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve
concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality
of Monaco.
Contributions to Super PACs, Hybrid PACs and Historical Soft Money Party
Accounts – $5000.00
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $516609.71
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $116000.00
Grand total: $637,609.71.
So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting
in 1997, not one lump sum .
You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment
pricing. It's all a matter of public record.
PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete
Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting
place for current appointees than the online Plum book.
PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent.
Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.
"... "You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America." ..."
"... "You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. … These are people we have to understand and empathize with." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser,
where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang,
Hillary Clinton gave New York's social liberals what they came to
hear.
"You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call
the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and
laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,
you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."
This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to
cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats
went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on
Israeli TV:
"You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets."
First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and
the people who … think somehow he's going to restore an America that
no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking." And
who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump? They are
people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them
down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. …
These are people we have to understand and empathize with."
In short, Trump's support consists of one-half xenophobes,
bigots, and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.
And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together."
Her remarks echo those of Barack Obama in 2008 to San Francisco
fat cats puzzled about those strange Pennsylvanians.
They are "bitter," said Obama, they "cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."
In short, Pennsylvania is a backwater of alienated Bible-banging
gun nuts and bigots suspicious of outsiders and foreigners.
But who really are these folks our new class detests, sneers at,
and pities? As African-Americans are 90 percent behind Clinton, it
is not black folks. Nor is it Hispanics, who are solidly in the
Clinton camp.
Nor would Clinton tolerate such slurs directed at Third World
immigrants who are making America better by making us more diverse
than that old "America that no longer exists."
No, the folks Obama and
Clinton detest, disparage, and pity are the white working- and
middle-class folks Richard Nixon celebrated as Middle Americans and
the Silent Majority.
They are the folks who brought America through the Depression,
won World War II, and carried us through the Cold War from Truman in
1945 to victory with Ronald Reagan in 1989.
These are the Trump supporters. They reside mostly in red states
like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Middle Pennsylvania, and southern,
plains, and mountain states that have provided a disproportionate
share of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought and
died to guarantee the freedom of plutocratic LGBT lovers to laugh at
and mock them at $2,400-a-plate dinners.
Yet, there is truth in what Clinton said about eliminating "from
your thinking" people who believe Trump can "restore an America that
no longer exists."
For the last chance to restore America, as Trump himself told
Christian Broadcasting's "Brody File" on Friday, September 9, is
slipping away:
"I think this will be the last election if I don't win … because
you're going to have people flowing across the border, you're going
to have illegal immigrants coming in and they're going to be
legalized and they're going to be able to vote, and once that all
happens, you can forget it."
Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.
Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30
percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5
will vote for Clinton.
Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican,
will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will
decline in every subsequent presidential year.
The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation,
and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states
like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada purple,
and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.
What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent
Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial
Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.
A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to
Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion
across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country
by 2042.
What will then be left of the old America to conserve?
No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking
America away from the "haters," as they look down in moral supremacy
on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.
But a question arises for 2017.
Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a
President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or
loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhors?
"... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
"... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
"... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
"... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and
bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.
Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist
thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture
of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower
positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions
correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it
organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into
a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the
activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in
the international sphere.
Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising
ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.
Neoliberalism
cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards
the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important
interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state
on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan
limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being
'in the national interest.'
Second, however, the nationalism that articulates
these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its
function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised
as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests
of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national
ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation
among thelower orders.
As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every
ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense
competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically
and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora
– where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within
the global and imperial hierarchy.
Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content
of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally,
the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements
of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as
does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility
that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive
access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.
Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism
can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated
by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to
the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.
This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of
the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality.
This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains
in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but
even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate
as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition
between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails
very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in
elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash
with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied
classes. Instability, uncertainty ...
"... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
"... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
"... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
"... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
"... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
"... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
"... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
"... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass
the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's
tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines
or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing
them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign
country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through
a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some
commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and
transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.
As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and
Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And
WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.
diptherio
Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th
century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian
and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much
always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world"
even makes sense).
Norb
Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political
Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics
cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being
defined as who gets what in social interactions.
What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring
about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies
form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by
how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and
his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when
they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever.
This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the
mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which
are reaching limits.
Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political
economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change
will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.
flora
If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports
instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should
be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports
teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.
LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm
While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now,
I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social
contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in
terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.
Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing
just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out
of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.
sd
Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade?
With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending
impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization
and trade?
I Have Strange Dreams
Other things to consider:
– negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries
where they are most needed)
– environmental pollution
– destruction of cultures/habitats
– importation of western diet leading to decreased health
– spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
– resource wars
– drugs
– happiness
How are these "externalities" calculated?
"... 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."
"... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
"... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
"... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
"... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
"... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
Ben Denison
criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:
When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are
quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration
for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the
continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit
of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate
how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This
impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency
of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed
analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are
bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.
The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency
and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more
serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This
not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed
U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts
of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government
has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power
in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something
that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced
priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the
idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that
there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we
simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems
around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.
When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then
brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's
"failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support
and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow
of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a
neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the
intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict.
Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision
not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the
crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to
fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also
has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action
others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't
do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people
all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness
on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things
that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own
government's agency when it suits them.
"At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many
of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S.
has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's
agency when it suits them."
It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success
or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report
by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.
Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from
consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched
thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.
Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered
knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow
down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we
simply don't know.
It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism".
The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to
save the world, again and again.
Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere
in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once
you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have
a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never
be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism.
Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just
and pure and right.
It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into
other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate
us to their ends.
"one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us
and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government
does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion
about how people all around the world behave."
It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and
intervening.
We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.
The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general
level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and
other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt,
half-educated hacks and incompetents.
"... "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.
"... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
"... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
"... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
"... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
"... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
"... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
"... What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse. ..."
"... It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe) described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate. Obviously they are "pro-Trump". ..."
"... Wouldn't surprise me. Here's the thing on CBC editing the news [thehill.com] earlier too. ..."
For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0"
has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today,
he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona
Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more
information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal
information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network
infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives
from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia,
and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach
strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets
allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with
names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's
documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports
from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security
scans.
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111)
Journal
Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their
hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)
Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM
(#52885673) Journal
You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by
pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.
It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but
Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls
it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.
Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579)
Journal
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and
Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump
is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend
and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?
Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always
been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of
people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run
through a wood chipper.
The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became
an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a
lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador
to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker.
If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers
and diplomats have a lot in common.
Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent
until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the
attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to
doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than
'omg, politics at political party!'
Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally
and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November.
Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties
decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own
rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is
just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular
candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties
want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the
party will give then a leg up on the rest.
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055)
Journal
So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in
order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships
then?
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279)
Journal
There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's
particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that
the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so
the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria
as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation
of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice,
Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western
Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here
we are.
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)
The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)
The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance
laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence
in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't
make any difference.
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can
bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political
considerations trump the law every time.
DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <[email protected]> on Wednesday September
14, 2016 @10:31AM (#52885603) Homepage Journal
I'd say Glass Houses is the real reason (Score:2)
There is reluctance to take actions base on evidence uncovered by illegally
hacked emails. Doing so would invite more entities with political motivations
to just hack more...
Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September
14, 2016 @10:25AM (#52885549) Homepage
What are you talking about? Every media outlet except FOX is sucking
at Hillary's big toes, and even at times FOX is sucking her toes and licking
them. Whether it be in the US or Canada or the bloody UK. Hell NBC deleted
a segment from a broadcast last night when Bill Clinton said Hillary "Frequently
fainted" sorry I mean "occasionally fainted" that of course saved them all
of 1.5 seconds from their 1hr broadcast time limit, which was their excuse.
Nearly every site is sucking at her toes. Even on reddit from /r/politics
to /r/news to /r/worldnews is deleting anti-Hillary stories, even when they
use the exact title.
Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:57AM
(#52885797) Journal
It is like when the talking heads on one news program (CNN I believe)
described New York City on Sunday as "Sweltering", when it was 78 Degrees
out, in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate.
Obviously they are "pro-Trump".
Mashiki ( 184564 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ikihsam'> on Wednesday September
14, 2016 @11:31AM (#52886073) Homepage
(arstechnica.com)
223
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Friday September 02, 2016 @08:10PM
from the
data-capturing-devices
dept.
An anonymous reader shares with us an excerpt from a
report via Ars Technica:
As she was being
confirmed as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
contacted Colin Powell to ask him about his use of a
Blackberry while in the same role. According to a
Federal Bureau of Investigations memorandum
published today
(PDF), Powell warned Clinton
that if it became public that she was using a
Blackberry to "do business," her e-mails would be
treated as "official" record and be subject to the
law. "Be very careful," Powell said according to the
FBI. "I got around it all by not saying much and not
using systems that captured the data."
Perhaps Clinton's troubles began when she
switched from a Blackberry-hosted e-mail account to
an account on her Clintonemail.com domain -- a
domain
hosted on an Apple Power Mac "G4 or G5" tower
running in the Clintons' Chappaqua, New York
residence. The switch to the Power Mac as a server
occurred the same month she exchanged messages with
Powell.
The Power Mac, originally purchased in 2007 by
former President Clinton's aide Justin Cooper, had
acted as the server for presidentclinton.com and
wjcoffice.com. Cooper managed most of the technology
support for Bill Clinton and took charge of setting
up Hillary Clinton's new personal mail system on the
Power Mac, which sat alongside a firewall and
network switching hardware in the basement of the
Clintons' home.
But the Power Mac was having difficulty
handling the additional load created by Blackberry
usage from Secretary Clinton and her staff, so a
decision was made quickly to upgrade the server
hardware. Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff
at the State Department, Huma Abedin, connected
Cooper with Brian Pagliano, who had worked in IT for
the secretary's 2008 presidential campaign. Cooper
inquired with Pagliano about getting some of the
campaign's computer hardware as a replacement for
the Power Mac, and Pagliano was in the process of
selling the equipment off.
by
quantaman
(
517394
)
writes:
on
Saturday
September
03,
2016
@03:20AM
(
#52820193
)
A
sailor
going
and
photographing
classified
sections
of a
submarine
over
a
period
of
months.
Basically
looking
like
he
was
engaged
in
active
espionage.
Oooh,
"10
people
were
actually
punished
for
similar
or
lesser
offenses
than
what
Mrs.
Clinton
got
away
with
yesterday".
This
should
be
good
for
a
laugh.
1.
"pleaded
guilty
in
2005
to
illegally
sneaking
classified
documents
from
the
National
Archives
by
stuffing
papers
in
his
suit.
He
later
destroyed
some
of
them
in
his
office
and
lied
about
it."
Nope,
he
was
deliberately
removed
classified
documents
and
they
proved
he
lied
about
it.
2.
"Peter
Van
Buren,
a
foreign
service
officer
for
Hillary's
State
Department,
was
fired
and
his
security
clearance
revoked
for
quoting
a
Wikileaks
document
AFTER
publishing
a
book
critical
of
Clinton.
In
fact,
the
Washington
Post
reported
that
one
of
his
firing
infractions
was
"showing
'bad
judgement'
by
criticizing
Clinton
and
then-Rep.
Michele
Bachmann
on
his
blog."
Sounds
more
like
someone
being
punished
for
writing
a
book
critical
of
their
employer.
3.
Was
a
CIA
director
storing
classified
info
at
home.
This
is
the
most
comparable
though
the
CIA
director
was
dealing
with
more
sensitive
information,
should
have
been
more
aware
than
Hillary,
and
it
sounds
like
he
knew
he
had
mishandled
classified
intel.
So a
little
worse
than
Hillary
though
roughly
comparable.
He
also
got
pardoned
by
Bill
Clinton
before
he
even
finished
the
plea
deal.
So
that
actually
kinda
sets
a no
jail-time
incident.
4.
"A
Navy
intelligence
specialist
admitted
Thursday
that
he
smuggled
classified
documents
out
of
Fort
Bragg
in
folders
and
his
pants
pockets,
then
sold
them
for
$11,500
to a
man
he
believed
was
a
Chinese
agent."
Wow,
#4
and
they're
already
claiming
a
guy
trying
to
sell
classified
intelligence
to
the
Chinese
was
a
lesser
offence
than
Hillary?
I
seriously
checked
all
of
the
examples
and
even
read
the
links
on a
few
that
looked
promising.
This
one
was
actually
hilarious:
Lab
Tech
Steals
Data
from
Nuclear
Facility.
Jessica
Lynn
Quintana,
a
former
worker
at
the
Los
Alamos
National
Laboratory,
pleaded
guilty
in
federal
court
to
"knowingly
removing
classified
information
from
the
national
security
research
laboratory,
after
she
took
home
sensitive
documents
and
data
from
the
lab
last
year."
Talk
about
misrepresenting
the
facts.
She
was
charged
because
she
was
running
a
meth
lab!!
Still
I
learned
something,
don't
believe
a
damn
thing
you
read
on
"The
Political
Insider".
(f) Whoever,
being entrusted
with or having
lawful
possession or
control of any
document,
writing, code
book, signal
book, sketch,
photograph,
photographic
negative,
blueprint, plan,
map, model,
instrument,
appliance, note,
or information,
relating to the
national
defense, (1)
through gross
negligence
permits the same
to be removed
from its proper
place of custody
or delivered to
anyone in
violation of his
trust, or to be
lost, stolen,
abstracted, or
destroyed, or
(2) having
knowledge that
the same has
been illegally
removed from its
proper place of
custody or
delivered to
anyone in
violation of its
trust, or lost,
or stolen,
abstracted, or
destroyed, and
fails to make
prompt report of
such loss,
theft,
abstraction, or
destruction to
his superior
officer-
Shall be fined
under this title
or imprisoned
not more than
ten years, or
both.
tl;dr - she didn't
have to know it was
wrong, she simply had to
be "extremely careless"
(aka, "grossly
negligent")
tl;dr - she
didn't have
to know it
was wrong,
she simply
had to be
"extremely
careless"
(aka,
"grossly
negligent")
And despite the
fact the FBI
director used the
phrase "extreme
carelessness" wrt
the handling of
sensitive info,
somehow the
defenders of
lawlessness still
admit to the fact
that she very
clearly committed
multiple crimes.
I know you
paid shills
like to try
to sway
people to
your side
with a good
bit of
cherry
picking, you
really
should pick
your targets
better.
And
did
that
"extreme
carelessness"
result
in
confidential
information
being
destroyed
or
delivered
to
people
in
violation
of
trust?
Interesting
how you
removed half
a clause
from your
copy & paste
from above,
specifically:
through
gross
negligence
permits
the
same
to
be
removed
from
its
proper
place
of
custody
Was
Clinton's
email server
a proper
place of
custody? If
not, then
she violated
that statute
through
gross
negligence
at minimum.
One,
we
don't
know
what/if
anything
was
stolen,
we
just
know
that
there
was
at
least
one
successful
login
to
the
server
via
Tor
on a
user
account
where
the
owner
claimed
no
knowledge
of
the
software:
http://www.politico.com/story/...
[politico.com]
Two,
Clinton
did
not
do
the
reasonable
thing
in
the
setting
up
of
the
server,
nor
recognizing
classified
information,
nor
allowing
her
aids
to
re-handle
the
information
in
rather
careless
ways,
so
by
your
very
own
logic,
she
should
be
held
criminally
responsible
for
her
actions.
(prnewswire.com)
628
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:00AM
from the
turn-your-head-and-cough
dept.
schwit1
PR Newswire:
Concerns about Hillary Clinton's
health are "serious --
could be disqualifying for the position of President
of the U.S.
," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians
responding to an
informal internet survey
by the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20%
said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be
addressed as by full release of medical records."
Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political
attack; I have confidence in the letter from her
physician and see no cause for concern." While more
than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion,
only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus
thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous
thrombosis. More than 78% said the health concerns
had received "not enough emphasis" in the media, and
only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis."
Nearly two-thirds said that a physician who had a
concern about a candidate's fitness to serve for
health reasons should "make the concerns known to
the public." Only 11% said a physician should "keep
silent unless he had personally examined the
patient," and 10% that the candidate's health was
"off limits for public discussion." A
poll of 833 randomly selected registered voters
by Gravis Marketing showed that nearly half (49%)
were not aware of the "well documented major health
issues that Hillary Clinton has." Nearly
three-fourths (74%) were unaware of Bill Clinton's
statement that Hillary suffered a "terrible"
concussion requiring "six months of very serious
work to get over." The majority (57%) thought that
candidates should release their medical records.
"...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece
and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So,
public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So
austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that
nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?
Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout
of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was
a cover.
If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving
the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question
that they've brought no answer to.
...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very
rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend
a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.
What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to
find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years
they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters
in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for
them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and
tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a
minimum wage."
Mark Blyth
Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally
he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.
And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes
outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.
No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably
effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without
serious reform at the first.
This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There
will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot
turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically
corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils
offshore.
"... "State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until After The 2016 Election" [ International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers. But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the firm's founding in 2013. ..."
"... UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services, it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000." [ Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1 Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's body man . One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to, well, the people who made him worth a billion. ..."
"... The donors expect that their support of the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug] Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. ..."
"... UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [ Politico ]. ..."
"... "Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair." Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go… ..."
"State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until
After The 2016 Election" [
International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting
firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile
Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers.
But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is
unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if
Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the
firm's founding in 2013.
UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop
shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and
acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services,
it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000."
[
Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1
Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's
body man
. One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to,
well, the people who made him worth a billion.
"[I]n many of these [Clinton Foundation] episodes you can see expectations
operating like an electrical circuit. The donors expect that their support of
the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug]
Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin
seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a
lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. There
are two obvious possibilities. One is that the State Department actually was
granting important favors to Clinton Foundation donors that the many sustained
investigations have somehow failed to detect. The other, which is more likely,
is that someone, somewhere along the line, was getting played" [
The New Yorker ]. Surely those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive?
And public office is being used for private gain in either case?
UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from
their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president,
they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate
Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [
Politico ].
"Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi
and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said
that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for
the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair."
Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go…
"But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time
talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have
entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some
Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting
others (owners and professionals). …
To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people
in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the
agreements we have negotiated over the years."
13. How can we know you won't (again) impulsively damage
relationships with crucial allies to preserve your own ego?
Hillary Clinton added,
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S.
politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get
elected. #Trump2016
Is such incompetence in messaging a reflection of Hillary Clinton
own confusion? Or are the categories "terrorist and dictator" versus
"crucial allies" solely depending on the size of payments to the
Clinton Foundation?
She is sliding to throwing mud ,. what ever will stick will do
the trick I guess .This started after some polls showing the
Donald ahead a few points .
I recognize election season is always crazy in the states,
especially as an outside observer looking in, but this cycle
seems so far beyond that norm compared even to 4 years ago it
makes me quite uncomfortable. It reeks of a growing desperation
by the elites to me. The 2012 campaigns of the two major parties
were a circus by any measure, but they seem completely measured
and intellectual by this year's standards.
I understand American culture dwells a lot on violence, but
the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It
seems most of the country's population is either willfully
ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it
on wildly and willingly. How anybody could advocate carpet
bombing without irony or rebuttal is frightenening. That it
could drum up support - well that's just depressing.
The two most important topics in this election, nuclear
weapons and global warming, both candidates have been decidedly
silent about. It scares me that neither party even attempts to
appeal to the left anymore, except by manipulating them by fear
and non existent 'security' issues. If it's all about PR and
perception management anyways, I wonder why Clinton wears her
right leaning nature and war mongering history on her sleeve?
Maybe content and debate matters less than I assume it does to
the average American voter. Maybe it's totally about spectacle
and personality now and nothing else. Sad, sad days for those
who live in the middle of the Empire but it's hard to be
sympathetic sometimes. It seems the hot new consumer electronic
device gets more of a thorough analysis and debate than does
either major party candidates' platform (if you could even call
it that).
Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change
is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more
regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the
candidate as 'isolationist').
Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the
status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained
(despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an
'environmentalist').
this us election is much more pathetic then usual... witnessing
the standing president refer to putin akin to saddam hussain is
frankly insane, but shows how depraved the usa has gotten...
and, besides that, since when did the average usa person even
know where any place outside the usa was on a map, let alone
having actually been their? oh - i guess it doesn't matter...
as @1 originalone says basically 'putin did it'...
The Obama administration authorized CIA backing of the
rebellion almost before it started. In all likelihood, it
started several years before the revolt, and the authorization
was to provide legal cover for activity that was already
ongoing.
Unfortunately, your observations are sharp,
correct and to the point. All I can weakly offer is something
Ralph Nader said. Ralph Nader once noted that the difference
between the democrats and republicans is the difference between
a car hitting a wall at 60 miles per hour versus 120 miles per
hour. Not so anymore. Now both cars will hit the wall going as
fast as they can. And the passengers will jump for joy at the
speed.
"... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
"... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
"... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
"... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests
that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated
with rapid technological change.
... ... ...
On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian
perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been
the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern
libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by
the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract,
"Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson,
LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J.
Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.
... ... ...
By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later
became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his
position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered
his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of
the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts,
he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with
the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States
had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively
high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which,
indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world,
with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly
surpass England's industrial prowess.
The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best
economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize.
His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time,
known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic
prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive
pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction,
except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this
process.
Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the
1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited
the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into
vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive
movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.
... ... ...
With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign,
the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance
right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism
both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new
mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler,
said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is
the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum
wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.
In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages
was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern
"yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as
the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders
and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced
racial superiority as their battle cry.
One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of
neoliberalism.
"... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
"... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
"... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
"... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
"... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
"... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
"... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
"... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
"... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
"... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
"... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
"... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
"... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
"... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
"... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
"... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
"... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
"... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248
Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published
in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.
Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research
funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some
two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and
the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and
Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so
far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In
much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China),
the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through
the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.
Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought
that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach
replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism
requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the
Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic
economics and then in the realm of public policy.
Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance.
Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free
market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also
achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth,
technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a
very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and
regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures
is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to
create more problems than it solves.
The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with
dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations
include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets;
elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes
on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism
calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people)
across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors
should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to
acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement
by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence
of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first
many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary
response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests
decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their
advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas,
which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs
viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be
more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s
right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a
Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the
UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.
This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during
the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any
favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance.
On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful
for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance
from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the
resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least
in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which
have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration
that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism
has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy
and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated
capitalism into an opponent of it.
The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary
capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its
ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is
understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress.
Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising
living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2
However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation
in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not
expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise
to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from
the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and
public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the
macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation
policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking
social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial
sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and
depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict,
which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4
The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal
model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate
provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation,
while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent
to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios
of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved
labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading
developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first
period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries
and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the
era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster
GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.
While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively
depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity
over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal
policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from
state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation.
Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for
three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth
was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated
capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth
improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated
capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995,
averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000).
However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business
cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7
Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth
recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant
improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the
1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing
communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.
The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the
claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model
for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence
that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of
the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits
in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to
be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run
stability and survival.
The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy
The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies
are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule
operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable
for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important
determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive
structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that
periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual
and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained,
oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.
A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented
upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly
power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter
relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a
normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory
power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period
when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the
government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government
placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal,
state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases
built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal
market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of
transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions
would get the key subsidized routes.
Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil
War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known
as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal
position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities,
the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of
the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in
the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.
From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive
structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations
possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation,
and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form
of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists
began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist
role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation
of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly
movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in
what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist
state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal
era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous
popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist
state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular
movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business
favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions
for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain
the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary
people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward
the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in
American capitalism.
Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist
state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This
division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era
in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can
observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big
business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the
US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed
to an antigovernment stance.
What explains this political difference between large and small business?
When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from
fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon
and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9
They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly
profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they
can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small
business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run
considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of
taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions
that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in
the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.
This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared
to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which
had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role
in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal
foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly
on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10
It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state
intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal
theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified
on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for
economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their
spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could
not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.
This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s
in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread
its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by
a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist
Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation
of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity
B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981.
What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding
state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the
explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist
economy in the post-World War II period.
Globalization and Competition
Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border
economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the
relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al.,
1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic
interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade
flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We
will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure
of contemporary capitalism.
Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product
for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe,
the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative
to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths
by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new
peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The
1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.
Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services,
many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the
proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate
of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world
GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising
to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure
was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.
Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in
exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved
ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were
only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the
non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President,
1999, pp. 338, 444).
Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of
cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology
and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign
direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment
in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled
since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column
2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross
fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However,
it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment
accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.
Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct
investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and
deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes
account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement
of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which
capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows
the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage
of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow
is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing
only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border
capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it
remained well below the figure for 1910-14.
Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly
than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large
and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national
boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing
amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the
best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part
of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95
cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose
from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66%
for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange
transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80
billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and
services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for
less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).
While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be
the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have
occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is,
the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here,
where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales,
assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World
War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period
many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became
TNCs.
The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their
activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by
assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9%
of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this
shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities,
all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and
major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce
only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).
By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly
more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is
much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in
1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased
international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly
speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing,
extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly
all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.
While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a
capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier
international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that
are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within
a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of
the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually
occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level
of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much
more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were
exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products,
unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world
trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast,
in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994
(Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).
Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic
interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate
capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for
state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still
retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that
the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such
a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls
following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the
IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise
some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains
significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization
has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on
the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by
changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization
in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several
ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large
corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively
controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large
corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the
rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per
cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since
1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).
Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases
placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals.
General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has
to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly
integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other
financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition
with one another.
Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business
from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so
partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor
is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business
into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive
pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a
world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial
institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base,
the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes
them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their
regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their
global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of
big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in
the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away
from supporting a regulationist state.
Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance
to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in
a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including
some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved
the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more
controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons,
today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens
and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18
The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes
it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism
resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence
starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process
further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization
to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization,
which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the
interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly
more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations
well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid
rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table
3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current
globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism.
This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency
in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising
influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became
dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most
clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital,
which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.
Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism
The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation
for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the
face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three
additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These
are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries,
the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the
last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief
comments about these additional factors.
The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined
in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic
parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no
longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much
less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system.
The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism,
a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state
of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response
to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist
movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has
to incentive to retain the regulationist state.
The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative
"state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state
regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own
working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations
among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership,
which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated
capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more
factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.
The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist
state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis.
The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist
state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major
crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past,
the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever.
This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.
Concluding Comments
If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance,
it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability,
and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted
neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated
capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight
oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger
wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century
within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced
cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might
revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does
not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with
differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which
serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations.
Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the
bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power,
if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find
common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international
monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a
genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.
If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps
this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However,
such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point
does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival
socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.
A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from
one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of
neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point,
one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This
would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally,
the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal
global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point.
Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism
in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return
in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally
superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather
than private profit.
"... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing
integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence
of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...
..."
"... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World,
Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
"... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
"... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter
than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
"... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html
..."
"... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies
are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement,
the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers
are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian
regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
"... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
"... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
"... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other
trade is regulated trade. ..."
"... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is,
in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
"... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group,
just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
"... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe,
secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer.
Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
"... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget. ..."
"... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some
rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including
me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but
removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
"... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
"... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements
which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
"... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the
results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing
we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental
laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
"... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way
any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
"... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods
and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated
trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives
to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
"... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased
global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.
..."
What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad
consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been
a pillar of the international order. ...
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have
been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...
One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of
the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately
not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little
consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...
Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending
existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted.
On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have
run its course. ...
Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up
rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing
its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international
harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would
be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would
also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation
or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And
it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but
still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the
World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the
globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists
- for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the
US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.
What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as
well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better
would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.
The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they
are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of
almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape
of external debt.
When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests
of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.
International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no
armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of
enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers,
and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist
governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.
In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries
have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.
The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened
to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country,
nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few,
on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.
Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level.
And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved,
the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens
of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private
debt.
Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.
The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the
distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing
power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American
dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.
Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable,
but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory
that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?
Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the
US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our"
homogeneity?
I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?
The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....
ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's
group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.
It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam
artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society
is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated.
My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would
have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".
This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in
his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is
a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but
that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me
feel safe".
Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel
safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has
to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.
To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget.
I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose
some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people,
including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not
"free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and
a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose
is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade"
agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have
seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and
now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we
have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition
with backward countries.
" The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "
" ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ...
"
+1
Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then
(and only then) support it externally across the world.
Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY,
MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of
the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can
add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.
A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.
Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive
pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other
boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome
what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get
support for actions) ever gets done.
I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.
by Jared Bernstein
April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am
"...
Here's Larry's view of the way forward:
"The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project.
The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would
mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements,
whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues
related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as
much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation
through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean
an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope
desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive
process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""
It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading
partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of
this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating
ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.
It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced
around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old
trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd
best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both
here and abroad."
Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the
goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under
such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate
private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god
can't tolerate.
Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little.
We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about
the compensation principle. Turn the table!
"consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " --
"The Great Illusion" (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
)
That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which
so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.
Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either
increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick
which to believe.
Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital
controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated
the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the
concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm
When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to
income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008,
the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today.
This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can
only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and
it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just
become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the
1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
"... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
"... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
"... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
"... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
"... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
"... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
"... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
"... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new
generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated
the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that
shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting
on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a
single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in
a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting.
They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against
the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the
impunity
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to
Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state
that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular
protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of
the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single
stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few
hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They
have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the
resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity
of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They
are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted
futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as
the matrix of human ethics and life.
Pasha the Tiger
In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and
Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low
levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range
of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however,
the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton
Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an
attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.
Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public
sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed
to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey
argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the
wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society
to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.
In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European
colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part
of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result,
but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off
of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington,
Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International
Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose
privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the
order of the day.
Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the
Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively
large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created
an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption
on the part of the ruling families of autocrats
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and
Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging
local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.
It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds
in the course of the revolution they made last January was the
Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi,
a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of
Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous
mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic
banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released
by WikiLeaks
observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic
banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued
through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities
from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to
give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.
Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders
to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying
against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was
borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite
privately.
Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite,
half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali.
As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices,
such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign
investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy
character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves
of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed
incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially
hard.
It was no happenstance that the young man who
immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed
vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning
of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the
point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but
to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against
economic opportunity.
Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue
The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali
plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even
Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011
youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian
activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based
Adbusters Media Foundation
were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in
deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.
Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through
spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call
on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17,
with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered
on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown
millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in
nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States,
sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in
Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European
movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per
cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes
of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and
Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per
cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed
for exactly that.
Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests,
progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July,
sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself
unable
to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started
a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and
moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by
hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew,
spreading to cities throughout the country and
culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history.
Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000
in Haifa. Their demands
included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies,
less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation
of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child
care.
Many on the left in Israel are also
deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers
on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's
demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason,
the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian
revolution has been downplayed, although
"Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations
and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.
Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims
of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them
and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state
but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled
by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in
order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was
reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of
the much-despised West Bank settlements.
There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of
Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May.
Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I
met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There
are now
16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current
crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous
fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the
most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families
in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of
1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families
among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.
While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the
world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly.
The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding
principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing
Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to
the top of society.
The indignant ones
European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by
a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked
demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation.
The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and
Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular
locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to
be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters,
that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the
same set of wealthy miscreants.
Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got
their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza
against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that
among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square
immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital
(as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the
same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment
(and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that
do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and
cuts in education and other services.
Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer
denounced
both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that
emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over
personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated
on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000
coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For
marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement,
hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona,
among other cities.
The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully
appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration
Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations
this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed
by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject
$1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor
those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories.
Chilean students have
already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based
education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised
so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the
underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal
order itself.
The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage
of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy
strikes of all sorts played a
key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its
way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies
of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the
bargaining power of their unions.
The Egyptians, Commentary typically
wrote,
were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the
day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired
for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against
tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.
The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality:
that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't
just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison.
The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched
an
explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on
worker's rights.
At least,Commentary did us one favour: it clarified
why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the
revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political
rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then
they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe,
where such norms already prevailed.
If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then
clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption,
the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled
those of their American counterparts.
The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely
as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile
and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television
news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring
functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien
and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of
working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly
feel differently.
Facebook flash mobs
If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar,
whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally
right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation
of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference
in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have
allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture
the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.
Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and
Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had
been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined
generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal
question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased
wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands,
the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.
If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting
such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash
mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through
the neoliberal shell game.
Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and
the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan.
His latest book,
Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from
Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the
Informed Comment website.
A version of this article was first published on
Tom Dispatch.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and
do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism.The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes,
this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global
working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the
South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward
mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism
and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant
workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying
ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare
and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed
even as heroic.
Notable quotes:
"... over-accumulation ..."
"... Cyclical crises ..."
"... . Structural crises ..."
"... systemic crisis ..."
"... social reproduction. ..."
"... crisis of humanity ..."
"... 1984 has arrived; ..."
"... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
"... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
"... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
"... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history.
Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of
capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues
that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising
the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological
holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions,
limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of
humanity is the only viable solution.
The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in
its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring
through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in
ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly,
the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of
the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous
outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and
the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template
for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes
in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics
of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective,
we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such
as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally
different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new
epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by
a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations
of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production
and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated,
either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in
which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial
flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in
which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation
of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent
the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global
capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a
class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world,
North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class.
This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third
is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted
as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together
with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational
accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its
class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality,
domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance
of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession"
of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be
found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state
power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist
system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place
tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand
because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct
productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption
worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world
market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration
of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national
states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and
offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises
are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions
that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the
system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were
cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural
crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only
be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of
the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the
structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model
of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the
1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis
involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or
by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility
for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis –
in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a
breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely
on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical
contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme
uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces
to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple
and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural,
ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness,
values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of
social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the
survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises
of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and
domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they
fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing
downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions,
perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic
challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's
authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And
a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted
in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change
and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions
of the world, among other indicators.
By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic
proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising
the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new
"Dark Ages."2
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way
as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.
This crisis of humanity shares a
number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several
features unique to the present:
The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction.
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as
to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would
be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary
changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According
to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries"
crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist,
four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and
biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes
have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented,
as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic
production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups.
Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth,
have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised
for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the
same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the
age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication,
images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world
of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive
expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that
can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced,
and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist
spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces
of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never
before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where
will it now expand?
There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet
of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown
into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control
and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion.
This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent
policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state
based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses
are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists
refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power
and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons
of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life
and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can
come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society.
Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is
aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more
radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse
of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling)
to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response
is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political
conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt.
While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad
strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational
capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of
the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle
layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the
specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation,
homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats,
such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century
fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy
and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture
normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination
with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised
mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces
from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply
put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot
easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have
been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around
the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and
uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority
of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which
humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
About the Author
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and
international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996),
Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism
(2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008),
and
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal
wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling
the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process
happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
"... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
"... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
"... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
"... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
"... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
"... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
"... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
"... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
"... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
"... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
"... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
"... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
"... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
"... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
"... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
"... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
"... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
"... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
"... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
"... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
"... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
"... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
"... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
"... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
"... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
"... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
"... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
"... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
"... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
"... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
"... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
"... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
"... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
"... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
"... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
"... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
"... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
"... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
"... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
"... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
"... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
"... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
"... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
"... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
"... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
"... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
"... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
"... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
"... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
"... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
"... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
"... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
"... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
"... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
"... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
"... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
"... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
"... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
"... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
"... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
"... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
"... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
"... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
"... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
"... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
"... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they
see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't
so serious - Zionist.
1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe
however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised
of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella
bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but
considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares
wanting and discards.
2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked
off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have
quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue
- mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That
is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself
and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put
his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.
3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention
to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in
western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while
developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective
there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from
President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi
of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and
astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.
4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of
politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to
regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end
in itself.
5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people
currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might
recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit
much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee
is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills
are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a
refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as
this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was
essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian
at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus.
All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he
and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias
and the FSA.
When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was
born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular
grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were
a lot smarter.
On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government
are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols
are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty
oppression by assholes any longer.
6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi,
but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them
to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing
what they preached.
I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division
- if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and
group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they
have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group
B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership
of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim
to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have
done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done
similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded
it.
I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state
of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience
ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats
do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed
upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.
As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do
so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each
party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were
well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam
had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he
would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages
is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.
The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:
A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign
mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too
stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it
was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the
knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism
but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?
Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM |
Permalink
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are
too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,
i see exactly the same.
This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture
and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region
wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian,
Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism
however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting
firearms.
The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad
was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited
by (((foreign powers)))
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended
a long time ago.
This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in
USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions
and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years
ago Syria was a peaceful country.
Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and
bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has
become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick
countries do sick things.
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have
ended a long time ago
no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking
teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the
backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it
would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing
away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate
on this naked truth.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even
though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...
when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the
map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds
of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all
other rights.
so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.
This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus
in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for
America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ
eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other
countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside
the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch
with US, Saudi etc $$$s.
Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012
(below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11
of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US
attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and
they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should
be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The
Hague.
|~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable
form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult
to read.
Reference Debsisdead comment:
Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used
as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.
Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as
the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas
(neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously
been co-opted).
Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United
Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence
involved.
Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism;
manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions
that comprise spectrums.
Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad
who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised
Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist,
an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public
outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly
settled became cause célèbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents
but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow
of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make
little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been
sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar
al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition
and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security
forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now
well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.
I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts
to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against
humanity, crimes of war.
Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated
Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries
in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global
realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs
r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with
Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by
fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look
all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education
, public services.
Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon.
My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel
invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year
old.
I call major bullshit on your piece.
If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually
a compliment to Assad.
Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening
to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective
power around. Russia was still busy recovering.
What do you think would
have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have
been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and
refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power
was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military
field).
I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned
that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it
is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian
citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship?
Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.
And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is
why.
And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country
that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years,
and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian
Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character
and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will
some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that
they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.
I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous
incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told
him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil,
one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not
realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists
call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their
rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal
spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above
published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they
lack a time frame.
The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what
it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss
the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.
An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada
last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which
is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply
put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most
of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed
that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict
had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the
beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was
a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians
in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that
the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor
is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks
their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended
village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied
as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict
breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.
DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They
deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she
is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually
being said.
The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter
@14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering
for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money.
Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started,
if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on
and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils,
and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.
You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition
to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose
saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country.
They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account
and your bold anti racism
Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists
and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep
that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments
to use extremists as a weapon.
"If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever
it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure
in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination
and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?"
Passive-aggressive much?
The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels,
or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch
his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional,
diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.
"the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures
ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.
It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in
Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately
ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms
or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's
patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years,
from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran
out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau,
in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not
in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually
had.
No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been
falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the
weather.
"The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children
than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.
Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding
that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the
decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support,
the result is always bad.
Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this
deserves mention?
Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to
know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient
to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school
"oppression" analysis.
Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take
issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO,
adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."
I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom
he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can
be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than
the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be
raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the
people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm
for diplomatic relations.
I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts.
But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization
attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using
such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the
9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find
myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence
of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.
After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic,
the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only
criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.
And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on
behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever,
waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.
"The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the
sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing
that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."
DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as
some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name
a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model
of virtue."
It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional
Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians
who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style
religious dictatorship on Syria.
The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has
largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a
Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion
surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is
in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives
of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their
original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial
problem.
Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who
just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues
to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.
Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this
way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria
does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The
Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow
out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp
it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war
or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until
it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.
So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism
in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the
Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords
who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms.
Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and
I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If
they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be
dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered
with honor as Chavez is.
It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have
emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.
Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic
takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says
@25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is
plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, and yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. ~Epictetus
Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of
identification.
Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The
Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted
front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?
It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having
legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation
of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars
worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular
govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.
No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where
that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse.
Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would
wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their
mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that
its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins
Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances
are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya,
except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of
the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that
point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit
show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and
that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).
I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the
left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of,
he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If
he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition'
would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me.
If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would
they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing
act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come
out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the
point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're
essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild
the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was.
It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.
I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs
all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway
decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of
this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would
rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've
been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but
my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored
maybe id see your point.
Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC.
I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.
And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling.
It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've
always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that.
At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice
to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent
and anti democratic.
An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is
far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They
have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship
they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will
be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder
how that fits in with OPs post.
What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses
Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good".
But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil
an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected
him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned
AmeriKKKa's concern.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting)
hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone
else's shoes to understand their walk in life?
In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the
world with his/her drivel.
To make it as concise as possible:
What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex
Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the
neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of
Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine,
Turkey and Africa as a whole.
In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench
of obfuscation.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict
has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that
is the western MSM.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and
counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing.
If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region
we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes
upon each other. We've not evolved here.
It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is
why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing
I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing.
In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war;
but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at
sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.
Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory,
the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.
The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions
of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary
troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.
I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?]
i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization,
culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in
that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it.
Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors
of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels
and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad
is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words
carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths
of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all
kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.
Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering
hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless,
despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in
which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are
a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.
I call into question these two points:
(1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected,
misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while
thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where
the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the
civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit,
to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities
against the defenseless? What is the point?
(2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or
foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were
so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil.
But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have
died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's
government would have won this war quite a while ago.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic
fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living
according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver
to live.
Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the
mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to
take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
@9 I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to
define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient'
and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even
everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover
for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism
is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and
articles have been written explicitly defining it.
"Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"
American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for
decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries
money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus
and let the market run things.
I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he
is wrong. His remarks are out of date.
No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian
he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some
time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria
among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not
middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive
al-Qa'ida style view.
The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started
with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against
nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported
fascists.
The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in
April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war
oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice.
The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.
Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off
the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar.
Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not
in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian
peace.
The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock
news.
The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap
the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's
Neuschwanstein.
Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates
and Manifest Destiny are problematic.
I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as
described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will
but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence
there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's
past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies
out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on
the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant
Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails
but what of the minority?
BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism?
In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and
it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for
a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US,
look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is
the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises
some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know
of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side
or another.
I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what
s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments
forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.
I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar
al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how
he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971
to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when
Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda
in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises
he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between
and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do
not know.
Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government
did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That
is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know
if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to
cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once
Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF
and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as
privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.
But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar
al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President
in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88%
of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries)
and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April
2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.
The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must
say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as
Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like
so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering
reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how
has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis
and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?
Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism"
when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name'
the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism
but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that
is the problem.
It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying
what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.
When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term
as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past
a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism,
but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.
Manifest
Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full
Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in
nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist
fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path
we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared
in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".
They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in
comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite
reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one
who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia
seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle
instigated by US imperial delusions.
But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by
the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because,
living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad
his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with,
so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were
pampered by western elites.
Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble
unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.
I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator
prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started.
Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his
country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls
in the vice and all.
He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided
to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk
going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know
this very well.
Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only
win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors
know that as a fact.
Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would
be invincible.
"This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."
Question to you:
if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and
Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.
If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers
does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise
Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without
foreign help.
And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire
Syrian war.
If Assad goes:
Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned
to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the
occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western
Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth
it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It
becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?
I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty
level question, although it feels like a $64k one.
Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very
much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE
Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance,
her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition
of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard,
Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande,
etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
@ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your
link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say
'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless,
killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow
who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic
reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture
in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and
who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097
And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to
work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari
not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random
facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most
people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.
of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition
houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files",
assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too
hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).
i seriously
doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi
after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings.
they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always
machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance
of how the region is.
and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead
of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and
a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way
to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in
the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria
and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice.
just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.
[also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths
in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european
"powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring
their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]
as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist",
be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity
of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind
conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that
lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like
that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?
whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.
I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters
who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still,
I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives
no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers
of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the
mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize
the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and
crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.
Look I know the
MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks
at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition
of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason
this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and
contributors.
The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he
made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against
Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready
one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).
The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other
for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below.
I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY
worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this
site in the first place.
Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the
war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel
to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me
to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism
besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of
these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor
of ways, is really disheartening.
There's no way to a solution for the Syrian
people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate
to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will
come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.
WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.
Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM |
79
The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back
when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western
elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means
necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people.
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil",
corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved,
nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.
I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on
this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment
thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At
this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters
is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that
Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and
eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for
free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.
And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over
by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should
have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other
job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free
Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything
is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.
"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution.
Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.
"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house.
Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."
...
.. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does
not matter. He personally does not matter.
...
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...
Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People
of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
Did you forget?
Did you not know?
Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?
Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after
a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it
denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.
The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover
from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire
was holding at the start of its second day.
Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked
an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside
of Quneitra province.
The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours
after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan
Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.
The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone
after the Israeli attack.
Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said
in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from
Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point
was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."
The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States,
is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.
Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the
warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem.
This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to
convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist
form of Islam. T
here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some
Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or
put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if
the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.
Only the Saudis, or pushers
of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's
crusade.
Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took
up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control.
People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired
on police and civilians.
There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just
as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants
from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves
in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis
for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are
the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and
insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back
woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor
these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms
against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened
by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New
America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their
armaments while providing political cover.
I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection
in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline
decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened
in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most
resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this
is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't
care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no
one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.
"All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of
leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture
a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective
revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to
allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their
name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community.
This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared
no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."
Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist'
to a 'market' economy. Notes.
*decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far
lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed
a good Gvmt job, could support many.
*cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>)
plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought
about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
…imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..)
which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging
to nil in 2012, consequences:
> a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social
stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation
being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)
> b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition
from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some
but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not
have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit
set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute
for 'growing employment..'
*opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)
So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash
FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA,
pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife'
(sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)
1. all nos off the top of my head.
2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but
numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate
2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images
and 'supporters' etc.
Spirited defense of the establishment from one of financial oligarchy members.
" The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring
billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy
is doing just fine?
Notable quotes:
"... "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number." ..."
"... In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research." ..."
"... Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted ..."
"... His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele , who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection. ..."
"... The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent. ..."
"... What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture. ..."
"... I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data. ..."
"... But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%. ..."
"... U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice. ..."
"... Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels ..."
"... "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. " ..."
"... I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor. ..."
"... And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts. ..."
"... I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this. ..."
"... I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse. ..."
"... Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%. ..."
"... Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that. ..."
"... The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly. ..."
Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one. -
The Washington Post
Listen to President Obama, and you'll hear that job growth is stronger than
at any point in the past 20 years, and - as
he said in his final State of the Union address - "anyone claiming that
America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction."
Listen to Donald Trump and you'll hear something completely different. The
billionaire Republican candidate for president told The Washington Post last
week that
the economy is one big Federal Reserve bubble waiting to burst, and that
as for job growth, "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's
probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Not only that, Trump
said, but the numbers are juiced: "That was a number that was devised, statistically
devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And
I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number
was a real number."
It's easy enough to dismiss - as a phalanx of economists and analysts
did - Trump's claims as yet another one of his all-too-frequent campaign
lines that have little to do with reality. But with this one, at least, Trump
is tapping into a deep and mostly overlooked well of popular suspicion of government
numbers and a deeply held belief that what "we the people" are told about the
economy by the government is
lies, damn
lies and statistics designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the
working class. The stubborn persistence of these beliefs should be a reminder
that just because the United States is doing well in general, that doesn't mean
everyone in the country is. It's also a warning to experts and policymakers
that in the real world,
there is no "the economy," there are many, and generalizations have a way
of glossing over some very rough patches.
Since the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government began keeping
and compiling our modern suite of economic numbers, there has been constant
skepticism of the reports, coming from different corners depending on economic
trends and the broader political climate. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance,
organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating
inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages
from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor
at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both
employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze
wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research."
Over the decades, those views hardened. Throughout the 1970s, as workers
struggled with unemployment and stagflation, the government continually tweaked
its formulas for measuring prices. By and large, these changes and new formulas
were designed to make the figures more accurate in a fast-changing world. But
for those who were already convinced the government was trying to paint a deliberately
false picture, the tweaks and innovations were interpreted as a devious way
to avoid spending money to help the ailing middle class, not trying to measure
what was actually happening to design policies to help address it. The commissioner
of BLS at the time, Janet Norwood, dismissed those concerns
in testimony to Congress in the late 1970s, saying that when people don't
get the number they want, "they feel there must be something wrong with the
indicator itself."
Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch,
the once-legendary former CEO of GE,
blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment
report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than
it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't
debate so change numbers," he tweeted after that last October report showed
better-than-expected job growth and lower-than-anticipated unemployment rate.
His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist
John Crudele, who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with
BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating
the numbers to help Obama win reelection.
These views are not fringe. Type the search terms "inflation
is false" into Google, and you will get reams of articles and analysis from
mainstream outlets and voices, including investment guru Bill Gross (who referred
to inflation numbers as a "haute
con job"). Similar results pop up with the terms "real
unemployment rate," and given how many ways there are to count employment,
there are legitimate issues with the headline number.
The cohort that responds to Trump reads those numbers in a starkly different
light from the cohort laughing at him for it. Whenever the unemployment rate
comes out showing improvement and hiring, those who are experiencing dwindling
wages and shrinking opportunities might see a meticulously constructed web of
lies meant to paint a positive picture so that the plight of tens of millions
who have dropped out of the workforce can be ignored. The chairman of the
Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment
is measured that he has called the
official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign,
Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is
at best above 10 percent.
Beneath the anger and the distrust - which extend to a booming stock market
that helps the wealthy and banks flush with profit even after the financial
crisis - there lies a very real problem with how economists, the media and policymakers
discuss economics. No, the bureaucrats in the Labor and Commerce departments
who compile these numbers aren't a cabal engaged in a cover-up. And no, the
Fed is not an Illuminati conspiracy. But the idea that a few simple big numbers
that are at best averages to describe a large system we call "the economy" can
adequately capture the stories of 320 million people is a fiction, one that
we tell ourselves regularly, and which millions of people know to be false to
their own experience.
It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at
5 percent.
But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men
who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school
education, the unemployment reality is much worse (though it's even worse for
black
and Hispanic men, who don't seem to be responding by flocking to Trump in
large numbers). Even when those with these skill sets can get a job, the pay
is woefully below a living wage. Jobs that don't pay well still count, in the
stats, as jobs. Telling people who are barely getting by that the economy is
just fine must appear much more than insensitive. It is insulting, and it feels
like a denial of what they are experiencing.
The chords Trump strikes when he makes these claims, therefore, should be
taken more seriously than the claims themselves. We need to be much more diligent
in understanding what our national numbers do and do not tell us, and how much
they obscure. In trying to hang our sense of what's what on a few big numbers,
we risk glossing over the tens of millions whose lives don't fit those numbers
and don't fit the story. "The economy" may be doing just fine, but that doesn't
mean that everyone is. Inflation might be low, but millions can be struggling
to meet basic costs just the same.
So yes, Trump is wrong, and he's the culmination of decades of paranoia and
distrust of government reports. The economy overall is doing just fine.
But people are still struggling. We don't have to share the paranoia or buy
into the conspiratorial narrative to acknowledge that. A great nation, the one
Trump promises to restore, can embrace more than one story, and can afford to
speak to those left out of our rosy national numbers along with those whose
experience reflect them.
the3sattlers, 4/8/2016 1:05 PM EDT
" The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the
Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it
to say that the economy is doing just fine?
james_harrigan, 4/8/2016 10:14 AM EDT
What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about
what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what
they capture.
Derbigdog, 4/8/2016 11:40 AM EDT
I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that
the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data.
captdon1, 4/8/2016 5:51 AM EDT
Not reported by WP
The first two years of Obama's presidency Democrats controlled the house
and Senate. The second two years, Republicans controlled the Senate. The
last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans controlled house and Senate.
During this six years the national debt increase $10 TRILLION and the Government
collected $9 TRILLION in taxes and borrowed $10 TRILLION. ($19 Trillion
In Six Years!!!) (Where did our lovely politicians spend this enormous amount
of money??? (Republicans and Democrats!)
reussere, 4/8/2016 1:43 AM EDT
Reading the comments below it strikes me again and again how far out
of whack most people are with reality. It's absolutely true that using a
single number for the employment rate reflects the overall average of the
economy certainly doesn't measure how every person is doing, anymore than
an average global temperature doesn't measure any local temperatures.
One thing not emphasized in the article is that there is a number of
different statistics. The 5% figure refers to the U-3 statistic. Nearly
all of the rest of the employment statistics are higher, some considerably
so because they include different groups of people. But when you compare
U-3 from different years, you are comparing apples and apples. The rest
of the numbers very closely track with U-3. That is when U-3 goes up and
down, U-6 go up and down pretty much in lockstep.
It is unfortunate that subpopulations of Americans are doing far worse
(and some doing far better) than average. But that is the nature of averages
after all. It is simply impossible for a single number (or even a group
of a dozen different employment measurements) to accurately reflect a complex
reality.
Smoothcountryside, 4/8/2016 12:04 PM EDT
The alternative measures of labor underutilization are defined as U-1
through U-6 with U-6 being the broadest measure and probably the closes
to the "true" level of unemployment. Otherwise, all the rest of your commentary
is correct.
southernbaked, 4/7/2016 11:02 PM EDT
Because this highly educated writer is totally bias, he left out some
key parts, I personally lived though. He referred back to the late 70's
twice. But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was
figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service,
as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally
left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before
the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could
be reelected if it was above 8%.
Then after he was sworn in--- in January, they had to readjust the numbers
back up. They blamed it on one employees mistakes-- PS. no one was fired
or disciplined for fudging. Bottom line is, for every 1.8 manufacturing
job, there are 2 government jobs, that is disaster. Because this writer
is to young to have lived in America when it was great. When for every 1
government job, you had 3 manufacturing jobs.
I will enlighten him. I joined the workforce -- With no higher education
-- when you merely walked down the road, and picked out a job. Because jobs
hang on trees like apples. By 35 I COMPLETELY owned my first 3 bedroom brick
house, and the 2 newer cars parked in the driveway. Anyone care to try that
now ??
As for all this talk about education-- I have a bit of knowledge about
that subject-- because I paid in full to send all under my roof through
it. Without one dime of aide from anyone. The above writer is proof-- you
can be heavily educated, and DEAD WRONG. There is nothing good about this
economy. Signed, UN-affiliated to either corrupted party
Bluhorizons, 4/7/2016 9:43 PM EDT
"we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably
into the 20s if you look at the real number." Trump is correct. The unemployment
data is contrived from data about people receiving unemployment compensation
but the people who's unemployment has ended and people who have just given
up is invisible.
"It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at
5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree,
or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more
than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse "
The author goes on and on about the legitimate distrust of government
unemployment data and then tells us Trump is wrong. But the article convinces
us Trump is right! So, this article its not really about the legitimate
distrust of government data is is about the author's not liking Trump. Typical
New Left bs
Aushax, 4/7/2016 8:24 PM EDT
Last jobs report before the 2012 election the number unusually dropped
then was readjusted up after the election. Coincidentally?
George Mason, 4/7/2016 8:15 PM EDT
U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and
you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice.
F mackey, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT
hey reporter,Todays WSJ, More than 40% of the student borrowers aren't
making payments? WHY? easy,they owe big $ money$ & cant get a job or a well
paying job to pay back the loans,hey reporter,i'd send you $10 bucks to
buy a clue,but you'd probably get lost going to the store,what a %@%@%@,another
reporter,who doesn't have a clue on whats going on,jmo
SimpleCountryActuary, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT
This reporter is a Hillary tool. Even the Los Angeles Times on March
6th had to admit:
"Trump is partly right in saying that trade has cost the U.S. economy
jobs and held down wages. He may also be correct - to a degree - in saying
that low-skilled immigrants have depressed salaries for certain jobs or
industries..."
If this is the quality of reporting the WaPo is going to provide, namely
even worse than the Los Angeles Times, then Bezos had better fire the editorial
staff and buy a new one.
Clyde4, 4/7/2016 7:34 PM EDT [Edited]
This article dismissing Trump is exactly what is wrong with journalism
today - all about creating a false reality for people instead of investigating
and reporting
Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population
that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate
is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach
to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates
back to historical levels
The author completely ignored the big elephant in the room -- that is
irresponsible journalism
The author may want to look into how the unemployment rate shot up in
2008 when the government extended benefits and then the unemployment rate
plummeted again when unemployment benefits were decrease (around 2011, I
believe) - if I were the author I would do a little research into whether
the unemployment rate correlates with how much is paid out in benefits or
with unemployment determined through some other approach (like surveys
dangerbird1225, 4/7/2016 7:25 PM EDT
Bunch of crap. If you stop counting those that stop looking for a job,
your numbers are wrong. Period. Why didn't this apologist for statistics
mention that?
"The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social
Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a
crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. "
I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate
floor.
"Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next
and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The
actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until
now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Senate speech, Democratic
Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
Go to New Orleans Chicago Atlanta Los Angeles Detroit stop anybody on
the street and ask if unemployment is 5% and that there is a 95% chance
a guy can get a job.
Then you will have a statistic reference point. Its not a Democratic
or republican issue because both of them have manipulated the system for
so long its meaningless. Go Trump 2016 and get this crap sorted out with
common sense plain English
AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 4:37 PM EDT
There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough
to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims.
GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's
Law predicts.
I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this.
TimberDave, 4/7/2016 2:23 PM EDT
I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped
including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant
shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was)
look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would
instantly make themselves look worse.
astroboy_2000, 4/7/2016 1:28 PM EDT
This would be a much more intelligent article if the writer actually
said what the government considers as 'employed'.
Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according
to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%.
Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs,
add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier
than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google
will show you that.
The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning
it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders
is the same as endorsing Hilly.
Manchester0913, 4/7/2016 2:12 PM EDT
The number you're referencing is captured under U6. However, U3 is the
traditional measure.
Son House, 4/7/2016 2:24 PM EDT
The government doesn't claim that working one hour a week is employed.
Google U 3 unemployment. Then google U 6 unemployment. You can be enlightened.
Liz in AL, 4/7/2016 7:21 PM EDT
I've found this compilation of all 6 of the "U-rates" very useful. It
encompasses the most restrictive (and thus smallest) U-1 rate, though the
most expansive U-6. It provides brief descriptions of what gets counted
for each rate, and (at least for more recent years) provides the ability
to compare at the monthly level of detail.
U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven
This
article outlines the main elements of
rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global
economic crisis of
2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to
neoliberal
globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the
semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its
transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed
capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the
broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet
to provide effective global economic governance. Overall,
neoliberal
globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and
multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging
powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to
pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial
architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to
preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains
of the recent past.
"... He said they took an innocuous email that she had received from one of her underlings and put the markings on it that indicated it was an email classified as SECRET. They asked Hillary if she had ever seen the email before, she said, "No." ..."
"... The FBI by marking the email with the markings that indicated that it was SECRET was only attempting to get Hillary to indicate that she understood what the markings meant and she did. ..."
The FBI set up a trap for Hillary Clinton during their questioning of her
and she fell right into it, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Judge Napolitano appeared yesterday morning on the Don Imus Show on WABC
radio and told Imus that at one point early in their questioning of her they
lied to her. He said that, under law, they are allowed to do so and did so
to set a trap.
He said they took an innocuous email that she had received from one of
her underlings and put the markings on it that indicated it was an email
classified as SECRET. They asked Hillary if she had ever seen the email
before, she said, "No."
But upon reading the email, she went on to say, "I don't know why this is
marked secret. There is nothing classified in it." Bam, she fell into the
trap.
The FBI by marking the email with the markings that indicated that it
was SECRET was only attempting to get Hillary to indicate that she
understood what the markings meant and she did.
Judge Napolitano also told Imus that there will be more negative news coming
out about the Clintons, especially the Clinton Foundation, He did not
provide details.
"... How can anyone take the claim that Hillary has pneumonia seriously? Are everyone's bullsh*t detectors are broken? ..."
"... Very likely to be BS. All speculation at this point...though I haven't got the will to sift through the MSM and blogosphere to attempt a reading between the lines. ..."
"... Speculation that she may have late stage Parkinsons is reaching a fever pitch. Parkinsons patients often contract pneumonia. ..."
"... What is happening now with Hillary is not another example of planning by the deep state; it is just the usual pattern among declining empires that their systems are too corrupt for good leaders to be chosen. ..."
"... Hillary is and has been a very sick lady for some time now. The fire, energy and determination she exuded during the 2008 campaign has not been visible during this run. The image of her stubbornly giving a speech in the rain to thousands of supporters in '08 are not seen this time around. The packed rally's are gone. She's a shell of the person she once was. ..."
"... Kaine was the Governor. Virginia put Obama in the White House. ..."
"... I am suggesting the neolib leadership has known Hillary's ailment was extremely serious for some time now, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm confident many tried to talk her out of running in '16 for the sake of her health and her family. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is Operation 'it takes a Village', that is, the entire Dem elite cabal has circled their wagons to ensure Hillary's lifelong wish is realized -- being sworn in as the first woman to the U.S. Presidency no matter how ill she may be. ..."
"... The pneumonia narrative that is peddled by her campaign and echoed by western presstitute media is obviously damage control. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't really care if the Republicans win. C'mon, now. Democrats might be unreliable on enacting the GOP policy the Third Way imperialist traitors want. Republicans will be very reliable at "balancing" the needs of the rich and well-connected with the bother of the poor and atomized. ..."
"... That comment is definitely the best speculation about Hillary's condition I have seen thus far. I started reading Atlantic comments recently. The Atlantic's posts are about as pro-Hillary as Salon's, but the comment section of the Atlantic turns out not to be a Dem echo chamber, as Salon and HuffPo entertainingly are. ..."
"... It's just that the signs of whatever her neurological disorder are becoming more prominent -- coughing fits, seizures, queer eye movement, a lack of energy and now collapse. ..."
"... ...The action of her security detail in the video reveals that they are aware of an ongoing issue. ..."
At this juncture I don't believe one damn thing the press (CCM; corporate
controlled media) says about anything; and especially Clinton's health.
I think she's on her way out.
Word is that Hillary is suffering from "vascular dementia" and will probably
die within a year. Or maybe even before the elections.
My guess is she
would be replaced by her vice presidential pick Tim Kaine or possibly Joe
Biden. Kain would perhaps be less than a total disaster, but relatively
little information about him can be discovered immediately. Biden is a hopeless,
ancient, corrupt political hack.
Or maybe Hillary will be secretly "replaced" by a double (the Beatles
ruse)? If she suddenly recovers the conspiracy world will instantly go on
red alert.
NY Times initially reported Hillary's collapse as a stumble. Do they understand
in that elite tower that YouTube video all over Twitter almost in real time
showed a dramatic fainting collapse? NYT needs a competent PR pro to explain
in easy to understand English that it must improve its lying so it accords
with immediately and easily observed reality. But ... too arrogant, too
privileged. I suppose, though, we should take some hope from the breakdown
of traditional uniparty media/propaganda.
From Wikipedia
: "In early 1984, Chernenko was hospitalized for over
a month, but kept working by sending the Politburo notes and letters. During
the summer, his doctors sent him to Kislovodsk for the mineral spas, but
on the day of his arrival at the resort Chernenko's health deteriorated,
and he contracted
pneumonia
.
Chernenko did not return to the Kremlin until later in 1984.
By the end of 1984, Chernenko could hardly leave the Central Clinical
Hospital, a heavily guarded facility in west Moscow, and the Politburo was
affixing a facsimile of his signature to all letters, as Chernenko had done
with Andropov's when he was dying. Chernenko's illness was first acknowledged
publicly on 22 February 1985 during a televised election rally."
No, Sec Clinton clearly goes rigid, the distinction is important.
Here's a video with a close up of her feet on the left in the second half
of the video.
How can anyone take the claim that Hillary has pneumonia seriously? Are
everyone's bullsh*t detectors are broken?
She lambasted those who claimed that she was ill only a week or so before.
So why would she try to hide any real illness - especially one that seems
rather mild (mild enough that she went to the 911 event and appeared healthy
when leaving Chelsea's apartment). Shifting explanations from the campaign
were amateurish for a condition that was supposedly diagnosed on FRIDAY.
As pointed by commenters on several different websites:
>> a pneumonia vaccine is recommended for anyone over 65 and with Hillary
hectic campaign schedule and travels she should have had the vaccine;
>> getting dragged into the van is not consistent with "overheated"
or pneumonia;
>> if she had pneumonia, why would she get close to a child
(after
leaving she Chelsea's apartment)
?
"Pneumonia" is likely to be BS. See my comment @11.
Very likely to be BS. All speculation at
this point...though I haven't got the will to sift through the MSM and blogosphere
to attempt a reading between the lines.
With that said, where there is smoke there's fire. Her limited public
schedule appears to be protecting something. Trump will no doubt play hardball
with the networks as only he can, but in the end he should engage Hillary
to share as much podium time as he can.
Sec Clinton clearly goes rigid, the distinction is important. Here's
a video with a close up of her feet on the left in the second half of the
video.
Also, to me it looks like she is doing that head bobbing thing again,
like she did when she was asked questions by several reporters simultaneously
while walking, and then at the Democratic convention. On those two previous
occasions, one had to point out that a person can have a (petit mal) seizure
without falling. This time, she fell.
Hillary's fund-raising trip to California planned for today and tomorrow
has been cancelled. The pneumonia story provides cover for that. (Which
is not to say that she does not have pneumonia. The point is that pneumonia
cannot explain her collapse.)
Speculation that she may have late stage Parkinsons is reaching a fever
pitch. Parkinsons patients often contract pneumonia. From a personal and
not political point of view, watching the videos was painful.
I think
she is withdrawing from the race in a matter of days.
Clinton would eliminate all other Dem contenders and
then she'd be pulled at the last minute for Biden to step in.
That seems to employ an interpretive framework common here at MoA. This
is that the Empire is infinitely knowledgeable and clever, so that anything
of geopolitical significance that happens anywhere must be explained as
another clever trick by the Empire's planners and strategists. (Obama fools
Putin once again with Turkey's invasion of Syria.)
So Hillary is to be seen as a mere instrument of the US Establishment,
in the same way that Obama is. (Obama does seem to be a creation
of the CIA
.) But I see Hillary more as an American Chernenko, as
Petri Krohn
does at #6 above. What is happening now with Hillary is
not another example of planning by the deep state; it is just the usual
pattern among declining empires that their systems are too corrupt for good
leaders to be chosen.
Heh,
deplorables
is not proper Eng. but from Sp. / Fr.
Before this incident - was
Game Over
…since at least a month…
The 'health' meme will be used as that is a legit, for HRC to get off
the stage. Rather than the e-mail scandal (Comey, head of FBI, could not
recommend 'prosecution' as he and his brother are tied to the Clintons in
various huge lucrative deals), the Total Corruption (bold it) of the Clinton
Foundation has to be swept under the lying carpet, etc.
HRC is on her last buckling legs and seizure bobbing head. So sad 'n
bad that her performance on stage etc. even if carefully monitored and contolled
by guardians, the audience who scrutinise are no longer fooled.
Besides her own ambition, is the q. of overall corruption. Billions were
invested in HRC, now they have to write down the loss, or are rabid about
being misled, angry at being lied to, some still want her propped up as
a Zombie, raking in fav decisions, others are like …this is the END…cue
music…
My hunch for quite some time now has been Hillary has some debilitating
affliction that modern medicine cannot overcome. Many have speculated that
it might be Parkinson's or what blues said @3 "vascular dementia". Whatever
her diagnosis is it appears to be neurologically related given her falls,
her seizures, her concussion (which I believe was a Traumatic Brain Injury
aka TBI). A concussion is a mild brain injury that can take up to three
or so months to recover. TBI's are a lifetime.
A family member of mine had a serious fall in her early sixties and she
was hospitalized with a TBI for six months. The first couple of weeks were
in ICU and then she was transferred to a long-term nursing facility. She
takes coumadin due to the two serious injuries to her brain. Sadly, her
health continues to deteriorate and she will remain in a long-term nursing
facility till her last breath.
Hillary is and has been a very sick lady for some time now. The fire,
energy and determination she exuded during the 2008 campaign has not been
visible during this run. The image of her stubbornly giving a speech in
the rain to thousands of supporters in '08 are not seen this time around.
The packed rally's are gone. She's a shell of the person she once was.
blues @3 said "My guess is she would be replaced by her vice presidential
pick Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden. Kain would perhaps be less than a
total disaster, but relatively little information about him can be discovered
immediately. Biden is a hopeless, ancient, corrupt political hack."
Tim Kaine IS Obama's third term. He IS Obama's pick. Not Hillary's. Kaine
screwed Hillary in '08 by peeling off many of Hillary's super delegates
in Virginia to support Obama. I know what that man did to eliminate her
support in this state as do many others who left the Party, as I did, in
total disgust. Never forget Virginia was a fire red state until the '08
election. Kaine was the Governor. Virginia put Obama in the White House.
A funny thing happened a couple of years after the '08 election along
with other extremely odd wins for other D's in both local and statewide
elections in Virginia. The voting machines in several key districts that
went blue were quietly removed due to a preponderance of evidence of manipulation.
There was only one alt news outlet that covered the story. No one in mainstream
touched it. I'm thinking both parties were aware, both parties manipulated
and both parties agreed to kill the story. Lots of elections I'm sure would
be over turned like say the match up b/w George Allen and Jim Webb...
I am suggesting the neolib leadership has known Hillary's ailment was
extremely serious for some time now, and I'm just guessing here, but I'm
confident many tried to talk her out of running in '16 for the sake of her
health and her family. But knowing Hillary, and pretty much any woman who
had come so close to reaching the pinnacle of her/their lifetime dreams
-- to crack the highest glass ceiling in elite land -- the US Presidency
-- she wasn't going to let any illness, no matter how serious, get in her
way.
What we are witnessing is Operation 'it takes a Village', that is, the
entire Dem elite cabal has circled their wagons to ensure Hillary's lifelong
wish is realized -- being sworn in as the first woman to the U.S. Presidency
no matter how ill she may be. Phase two of Operation 'it takes a Village'
is to have in place Obama's chosen predecessor -- Tim Kaine ready to take
the helm when she finally succumbs to her illness.
I predict she won't make it to November. Then what?
The pneumonia narrative that is peddled by her campaign and echoed by western
presstitute media is obviously damage control. I wonder how all those powerful
elites that gave her millions of bribes (donor money) must feel now. The
chance that she will need to be replaced is real and propping up a replacement
will again cost millions. Trump who has been dragged trough the mud (his
naked wife, small penis, ...) is remarkably tame on the issue. If it's not
because both he and Clinton have conspired right from the start, then it
must be that his campaigns strategy is to look like the "nice guy".
Here's
her "pneumonia" episode but from another angle. If you watch her hands,
it's clear she lost total control which of course is confirmed seconds later
when she drops like a rag doll.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/11-EAzsGxgQ
And again her creepy performance before the journos. The comments are
also quite funny: "This honestly creeped me out... I think it was demon
coming out of her..." or "My guess is that she's truly a reptilian creature
and it's fighting to retain its humanoid form."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHOcmDVBP0
If such episode would occur during her presidency she'd probably wag
the dog like her husband did during the Lewinsky case and bomb some pharmaceutical
factories to rubbles in some poor defenseless country.
Guess Google will have to crank
their false search results
up a notch as to prevent Jill Stein causing
a 2000 election moment and having the republicans win.
The Democratic Party doesn't
really
care if the Republicans
win. C'mon, now. Democrats might be unreliable on enacting the GOP policy
the Third Way imperialist traitors want. Republicans will be very reliable
at "balancing" the needs of the rich and well-connected with the bother
of the poor and atomized.
@22 Demian,
Kindly leave your bourgeois liberal priors at the door. Clearly you are
a self-absorbed managerialist who believes in the holiness of the Quantified
Self and one-true-wayism, i.e. the Problem personified, or you would recognize
that competence is not uniform across subjects and your ideological quest
for bourgeois excellence motivates nobody who's sane and honest.
So, having said that, it's a lot easier to run a stage show when you
control the angles (Fernsehen) than when you don't. And statecraft is, aside
from the cold-blooded murder required to subjugate a people against its
will, just stagecraft writ large.
I have been reading a lot of sites and am now convinced that Clinton has
been very ill for some time. There are countless photos which give it away
- from the neurological test of gripping two fingers presented to her which
her aides do often, to the pictures of aides taking her pulse while waiting
for her ride yesterday, the repeated head movements she makes when being
'ambushed' by journalist, the placement of her hands to stop trembling,
the coughing, the weird fixed smile - they all indicate middle-stage Parkinson's.
Yes, there has been speculation about Parkinson's for months, but I never
accepted that, because Parkinson's is characterized by the inability to
initiate movement, so that a feature is having a stone-faced look, which
Hillary does not have.
She can't walk, she can't control her own oral secretions and so she
is aspirating them...they are going down into her lung. Hence the cough,
and now aspiration pneumonia. Her fall and head injury weren't the cause...something
caused the fall.
I think she has a progressive neurological disease. Some speculate
Parkinson's, but I favor Progressive Supranuclear Palsy...the disease
the late Dudley Moore, actor, had. It is insidious in onset but starts
with balance and gait difficulties. It's been 4 years since Hillary
fell and got her concussion, so the disease is inexorably progressing.
Also...she had to be dragged into that van. Her feet were being dragged.
If this was the first time something like this happened, she would have
been taken to the ER. No lay people would have done anything else. So,
this is a recurrent problem they've dealt with before.
The symptoms of the disease listed by Wikipedia seem to match what we've
seen of Hillary pretty well.
That comment is definitely the best speculation about Hillary's condition
I have seen thus far. I started reading Atlantic comments recently. The
Atlantic's posts are about as pro-Hillary as Salon's, but the comment section
of the Atlantic turns out not to be a Dem echo chamber, as Salon and HuffPo
entertainingly are.
A psychopath runs for president of the United States with serious
medical problems when they worship the God of Mammon/private finance/global
plutocracy/or whatever you call our Hillary sick society.
That is an incredible story. I followed the link, and sure
enough, the addresses match. Why would someone put a medical facility in
an expensive residential building?
mischi : "what kind of a psychopath runs for president of the United States
with serious medical problems?"
The kind of person millions of Americans
would vote for: an habitual liar, a psycho, a person with cold-hearted ambition
and no compunction over spilled blood.
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor now, and is a testament to the level to
which this country has sunk.
She still doesn't strike me as sociopathic.
Just very ambitious, completely dishonest, highly blackmailable, and, by
the look of it, seriously ill.
I think the question should be - what person, or more likely, what group
of people make a vulnerable (however flawed) person with quickly progressing
disability run for POTUS on their behalf, and what do they hope to achieve
through her weakness and dependency on them, while fully accessing the greatest
executive power on planet Earth?
Someone on ZH just observed that Pres's Wilson and FDR were both basically
disabled by the time each presided over US entering another World War. Ominous.
(and I am not saying D Trump would be any better, just possibly harder
to control - and even that comes with a big question mark, reality show
hosting and all)
Maybe Hillary is being used as a means to an end. The Clintons
and the Bushes hide a rat's nest of secrets. She runs for the presidency,
in the way someone in the mafia might have to pay off a debt. And for an
example elsewhere, General Pinochet, the infamous head of the Chilean Junta,
escaped prosecution over reasons of incapacity to stand trial and ill health,
even though he was arrested, extradited, and brought back to Chile for trial.
The cancer that is the Clinton Foundation will escape scrutiny probably
because it remains an instrument of the permanent government, or Deep State.
But nothing would surprise me now. If there is an October Surprise, it is
probably another damn coup. It seems we are on a roll. Don't get too comfortable,
or think that we will come out unscathed, or that we will not have another
president selected for us.
The funny thing with the Hillary at 9/11 video was that they showed the
stumble but the part with the woman holding her up before the misstep is
sort of hidden.
jackrabbit @41 said "There were few concerns about her health during the
campaign for the Democratic nomination. Most of the heath concerns raised
have been in the last few weeks."
This is not accurate. Many have been
posting and discussing her health for many, many months now with some for
years. Drudge, Breitbart, the Conservative Treehouse, Right Side, Gateway
Pundit and so many more.
It's just that the signs of whatever her neurological disorder are becoming
more prominent -- coughing fits, seizures, queer eye movement, a lack of
energy and now collapse.
I know I've been following her health concerns for several years now.
It's just hard to do b/c her team protects and covers up for her. Nothing
to see here...move along...and the useless political press corp says nothing.
Only alt news and the right do.
Copeland@42 -
"...Maybe Hillary is being used as a means to an end..."
Give yourself a little more credit, Copeland. She
IS CLEARLY
being
used as a means to an end. What everyone should be wondering about isn't
whether she or Kaine will be sitting in the White House, but who is the
next Cheney that will be pulling the strings behind the scenes for either
of them. What is the next 9/11 the future Cheney is scheming? The thought
that either of these two will actually run anything is preposterous - they
are distractions. They are to serve as the brightly-dressed clowns with
big, floppy shoes and neon green wigs dancing around in front of us while
some version of Cheney II opens up the gold vaults and blood chutes back
in DC.
I'll humbly suggest that most people
are looking in the rear-view
mirror
for answers. Every U.S. citizens should
look closely in
the shadows around them now
for their next evil masters. The U.S.
MSM is
not
trying to get Hillary elected. They are desperately trying
to look like they are
so the debate goes on endlessly
. And it's working
absolutely wonderfully in an insidious, evil, psychopathic sort of way.
Americans are easy - we will all honestly be surprised by the
next
9/11 and it's inevitable result. Hillary or Trump are just sideshow freaks;
they're
not
the main attraction.
'Means to an end' is the job description of the entire
political class. We need to make choices of representatives/spokespersons
from among ourselves, and ultimately to empower ourselves, to turn down
our own deplorable, now exclusive reliance on representatives/spokespersons.
No one has our interests at heart but ourselves.
No to Clinton, no to Trump
.
...The action of her security detail in the video reveals that they are
aware of an ongoing issue. First, a collapse after an alleged pneumonia
diagnosis should have meant immediate medical care. Instead she is ferried
to her daughter's apartment and back on the street in an hour. Second, the
detail circles around her as she is placed in the van, blocking the view,
in a practiced deliberate manner. There is no surprise or second glances.
@ Paveway IV, I think you are right. Best to keep an eye on the shadows
gathering around us.
@ crone, Thanks for that video; but I thought is
was a little creepy that the doctor identifies his means of gathering evidence,
with the methods of the CIA
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor now, and is a testament
to the level to which this country has sunk.
I used to think that Lady Macbeth is the literary character who best
represents Hillary, but now I think it is Zola's
Nana
:
Nana
tells the story of Nana Coupeau's rise from streetwalker
to high-class prostitute during the last three years of the French Second
Empire. …
"What emerges from [Nana] is the completeness of Nana's destructive
force, brought to a culmination in the thirteenth chapter by a kind
of roll call of the victims of her voracity".
Zola has Nana die a horrible death in July 1870 from smallpox: "What
lay on the pillow was a charnel house, a heap of pus and blood, a shovelful
of putrid flesh. The pustules had invaded the whole face, so that one
pock touched the next". Outside her window the crowd is madly cheering
"To Berlin! To Berlin!" to greet the start of the Franco-Prussian War,
which will end in defeat for France and the end of the Second Empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM&feature=youtu.be
PARKINSONS
& Hillary. Seems credible. By a doctor. Goes back to 2005 & observes minutely--
even certain ways of using the hands. As far as I can see he's accounted
for every symptom. The clips are really interesting.
It should be beyond obvious that Clinton is not fit for the office of president.
Further, it could be said she is not concerned about her country, but rather
her own self aggrandizement.
The very embodiment of the worst of all possible leaders.
She's in advanced Parkinson's. Her symptoms can't be masked anymore.
Even
Google (which is in league with the Clintons) will suggest "Parkinson's"
if you type "hillary clinton p" into a search box.
Even if Hillary has no more events like she did on Sunday until the election,
it is very clear that she has Parkinson's, and there's a lot of buzz about
that on the Net. So keeping her name on the ballot on election day would
do more damage to the legitimacy of the American political system than the
theft of the 2000 election did. So I doubt that the establishment will run
the risk of keeping her name on.
And if she does manage to make it to November and get elected, her chances
of making it through another two months to get inaugurated are not that
good.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question
the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this:
Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have
any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
"... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
"... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
"... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent
article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East."
This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the
Libyan war:
A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL]
like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but
never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL].
We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.
It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan
war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab
Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other
regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in
Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that
they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time.
Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with
their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent
any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different
message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you
won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would
change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't
make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most
countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the
U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region.
It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for
war in Libya was built.
Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their
failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the
region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq
war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of
preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states
more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault
Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but
it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong
or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world
and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack
other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country,
but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere
in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial
(and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere
constitutes abdication of "leadership."
To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of
dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter
what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really
went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with
Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war
had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing
that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is
somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to
own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil
war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended
mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war
supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the
country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to
acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions
of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still
the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago,
and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.
That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders
continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates
on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what
the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply
the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides
in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the
failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were
failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription
that they made in the past.
"... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
"... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
"... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!".
Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge,
so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other
I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are
concerned.
Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing,
though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment
as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then
it does smell a little like corruption.
I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken
loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access
directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent"
download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot
of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.
In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's
Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails
imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey
Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how
questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC
Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.
But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email
complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle
at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations.
Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches
she kind of screws up with hubris. "
Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted
by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate
wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her
in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
Notable quotes:
"... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
"... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
"... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
"... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
"... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
"... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
"... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
"... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
"... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
"... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
"... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech
transcripts.
... ... ...
Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying
up credit in a self-serving way.
After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended"
consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually
signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And
on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said
no."
But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and,
when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.
Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir
Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian
state for 15 years.
Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.
She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes.
From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point
of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry
to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.
... ... ...
She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic
emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous,
reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration
put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to
people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?
... ... ...
Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up
the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed
in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence
Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so
egregious.
P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA
Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize
for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the
ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.
And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The
questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates
and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the
Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she
is a radical neoconservative at heart.
Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign
policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant.
She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look
for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows
to go around looking for new military adventures.
Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure,
she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong.
That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is
that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic
and foreign policy.
And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives
and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing
leadership and good judgment and good values.
Brett Morris California,
She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination
and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly
run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who
called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she
can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real
Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that
they will be a completely different person once in office then they have
been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.
That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the
worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era
where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window.
And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our
best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets
elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also
highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support
the more she exposes herself, every time.
Paul Long island
I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness
to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her
problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening
tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her
think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's
most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches
she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not
ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for
it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost.
To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since
she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry"
candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense
trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will
have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.
Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't
a senator with few accomplishments.
Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator
comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during
Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead
of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do),
when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If
anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to
mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7
On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate,
drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility
of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included
big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO
During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished
himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets
things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach
between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton.
When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders,
Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person
on Wall Street and everything will be fine."
They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration
displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are
coming for us" he means Wall Street.
"Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit,
but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya,
she noted that "the decision was the president's.""
That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to
experience again.
That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it.
Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention
as a failure, but as a work in progress."
"Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid
mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible
office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all
her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.
Joe Pike Gotham City
Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever
sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions.
She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles
alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState?
Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to
name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications
and personality.
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors
in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton
gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination
to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select
her at the ballot – from her detractors.
Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn
to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.
We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating
the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity
politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks
of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be
the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these
candidates represent.
Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________
Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue.
First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level
with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate
in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates,
they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in
flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because
you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).
Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags:
HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but
was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no
boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement
has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).
Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the
poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.
> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.
When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in,
before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting
control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term
"control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.
I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God
disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting
Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for
ironic flair.
The only positive thing to happen during this election season is
the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully
exposed, there is no coming back.
I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be
noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed
to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something
that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed
with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he
needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends
and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard
to come by.
Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture
shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new
order of the day. It becomes the style.
It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's
books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault
them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were
offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations
rather than a cognitive theory.
If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term,
I'd say that'd be the place to start.
""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million"
[Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered
the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."
See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white
men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join
that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!
Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic
context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free
Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.
The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide
us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the
economy is the weakest.
If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest
with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin,
Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain
traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken
the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton
Liberals" everywhere (apparently)
Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine
liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to
demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.
2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry…
where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring
me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed
but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled
and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope
yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when
we let them.
Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president
yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy
theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.).
I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group –
that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at
The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea)
the same building as has listed "
Metrocare Home Services "
The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in
the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.
I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny
if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about
the deception involved.
It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not
trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to
go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a
"demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's
head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.
But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord
knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective
I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .
First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on
at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges
against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch)
on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists
run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if
Hillary is elected.
From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary
is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking,
she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's
use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the
9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's
door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.
Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust
as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back
Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".
In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas
has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure
for the oligarchs!
And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement,
where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly
privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.
The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an
outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky,
4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.
Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed
sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants
of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly
useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They
tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.
Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's.
They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to
replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .
Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one
night's rampage.
Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.
Money stolen = About four bucks
Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window
seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.
Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1
But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my
s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only
paying half my income in various taxes.
That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that
while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose
of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until
a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on
the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages
of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately
the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.
Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property
taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.
Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.
Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when
there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to
pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.
Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one
up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've
made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are
located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost.
I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.
My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the
responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross
wages asserted by Robert Hahl.
I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor
the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying
said taxes.
I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in
taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many
of which are CHILDREN.)
My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to
tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so
they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not
pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days,
owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with
it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.
Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage
in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a
house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I
pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.
Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.
Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My
state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause
they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.
They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that
make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't
eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with
e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs
not covered by your local or state taxes.
Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in
absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so
much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government
could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would
be a way better use of the monies we pay.
I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where
we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will
be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend
to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have
vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that
negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.
A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got
some pretty questionable leadership.
I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having
spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum.
What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go
on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.
All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience.
After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor
children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for
more than something ridiculous like $3000.
I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours
she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food
stamps the following month.
It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages
reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net
of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.
Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for
the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency
account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class
who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools
for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long
term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something
they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when
that crappy $3000 car breaks down.
It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.
I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're
old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of
time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries
– have them).
Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.
Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal
experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).
Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine
- late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed
transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.
Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.
Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with
two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.
Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(
I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will
lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine
private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari
I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit
is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies
future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary
theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of
income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce
inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the
lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need
to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer
of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we
do better?
Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher
taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.
Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those
higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said
deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way
to presume that managers are there to be served.
Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress
inflation.
Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing
to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay
tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have
no value to the entity that creates them.
She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance
and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next
recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically
low levels.
…
Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing
to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would
be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be
falling further below its target for another three years.
But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that
he is off the Fed.
Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday
to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over
the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last
year.
The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing
to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and
Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around
Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility
will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according
to the L.A. County district attorney's office.
The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that
fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.
Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility
is sentenced on Nov. 29.
End of story. Literally.
This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of
the most powerful green house gas.
another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is
it the green thingies by the rocks?
I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of
work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that
there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you
can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing
at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking
your ass if they can.
Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what.
Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it.
mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see,
knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming
them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass.
What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious
to everybody
Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks
and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA,
Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court
press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is
being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the
lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away
our national sovereignty.
"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like
lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise
for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot
rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the
1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every
year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated
to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little
secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving
them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.
Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the
bottom.
In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called
'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly
at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching
each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't
prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend
an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big
Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring
in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"
This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in
It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent
decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced
to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours
later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed
with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated.
Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance
on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.
Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're
seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem
to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules,
for following the protocols.
And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to
get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.
I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus
was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible
for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything
she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.
What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia
diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing
some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and
Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took
her every bit of 6 months to recover from.
I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but
what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as
a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again,
she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years
of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people
in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows
better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing
to learn.
And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able
to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she
has, and that's what matters here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight
down to ignoring good advice.
I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems
to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and
Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision
not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of
them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds
herself in." Hillary owns that.
The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but
it was eventually stymied by the UK, as
George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit
is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more
environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main
obstacles in this.
"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending
by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead
to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector
confidence" Neel Kashkari
"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would
all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil
is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"
Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed.
On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had
been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.
"... My money's on H Clinton suffering a "serious relapse" into pneumonia, necessitating an 'indefinite' postponement of the debates. ..."
"... Native what, Algonquin? As in, "Hillary" =..small pox infested blankets. ..."
"... like your idol, you never reply with a straight answer when engaged on your talking points. I think you owe us - all the American people - much, much more than that. ..."
"... It's obvious you missed the fact I was 'speaking' tongue-in-cheek when I commented, as I was referencing an earlier comment regarding Warfarin being used to eradicate rats. (That and the *wink* I'd added sailed right over your head, apparently). Hateful? Yes. I've grown to hate Clinton for her complete dishonesty. ..."
"... First she says she turned over all the emails, and then Oops! The FBI found thousands more. ..."
"... She said she didn't have classified info on her personal server. Oops! Proven to be a lie once again. ..."
"... In response she said she didn't know how to distinguish classified emails from others. Really?! Remember, she was a senior partner at a law firm before entering the White House as First Lady. ..."
"... I don't expect her to participate in the debates, even if she doesn't drop out. I think that is the plan all along unless she's really behind in the polls. ..."
"... Nixon increased food stamps, created the EPA, expanded Medicaid… Maybe we could resurrect him to have an option to the left of the Goldwater Girl. ..."
"... I've read that Nixon was for socialized medicine, but it wasn't good enough for Teddy Kennedy, who helped kill it. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, one can only hope she follows the "good" NIxon model. but my fear is she will be an even more hawkish Obama, cynically saying one thing while doing another. ..."
"... The Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed Nixon to do things, but that countervailing force is gone now. ..."
"... He also nominated L. Powell, of the infamous "Powell memo" , to the SCOTUS…and while he(Nixon) might have publically postured and declared-"we're all keynesians now", the new deal was being hijacked (Hayeked) where it mattered. ..."
"... If Hillary really does have pneumonia - who knows, though, as the announcements and reporting have not necessarily been paragons of candor - it is serious. Pneumonia can turn fatal to old folks (68 is plenty old enough), sometimes when it seems to be under control. At the least, it can be debilitating for months. ..."
"... Something's fishy here. Whatever her problem really is I found it strange her handlers floated out the term, "pneumonia." Why use such a scary, ominous sounding word when something more benign, like a "mild respiratory ailment" would've sufficed just fine? ..."
"... Sounds like the beginning of "plausible deniability" exit possibilities have begun. ..."
"... Exactly, she should have been resting. IF she was diagnosed with pneumonia, she should have suspended activities for a few days. She is not President, there was nothing vital for her to do this weekend. Send delegates to the fundraisers, and offer a statement about 9/11. ..."
"... But instead she ends up having an episode that is clearly NOT pneumonia and there are at least two damning videos about it. Of course that means there is the other question: does she really have pneumonia or was that the least problematic excuse they could come up with? ..."
"... unfit to serve as president ..."
"... pre-9/11 memorial, one allegation floating in the conservative blogosphere was that Hillary Clinton wears a catheter given some odd bulges in some Clinton photos. ..."
"... Our real enemies aren't the rulers who act in their interest but the corporations, if we know a way by pure deceit to defeat them it might be more than worth it. But just getting tweedledee instead of tweddledum acting in their name not really. All we've done is pervert our own capacity to perceive reality for a non-plan. Our politicians already take advantage of our gullibility to believing whatever (Iraq had WMD etc.). ..."
"... That is not just pneumonia, she was having a seizure, something else that has been observed on video. Didn't they originally say this was dehydration? ..."
"... Epilepsy as a side effect of something tramatic versus Pneumonia. Fancy blue Zeiss lenses are sometimes used to treat epilepsy. Short-term, often predictable loss of motor control is common. An aide being close at all times, as in the person guiding her to the van, would be expected. ..."
"... Pneumonia does not produce motor issues but is often accompanied by powerful bouts of coughing. Pneumonia does not require an aide but generally involves lots of bed rest. It doesn't lead to rapid dehydration either. She was there for less than an hour. ..."
"... If they had planned better they would have said that Hillary had a bout of food poisoning. Instead it was the explained as the heat and then, Hillary showing no obvious symptoms, trying to imitate Typhoid Mary. I thought politicians were better at fibbing than this. ..."
"... [H]er visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or long untreated case of pneumonia ..."
"... However, the facts of the situation are not. As far as "severe" goes, according to her release, she was diagnosed on Friday, and given antibiotics. As anyone who has suffered bacterial respiratory infection knows, antibiotics will usually get you on the road to recovery pretty quickly. Combined with plenty of fluid intake, she should have been out of the woods, not hurtling towards a complete physical breakdown. Also, the prevailing message is that its's a "mild" case and that the real bugbear is dehydration. It stretches credulity to suggest a person with a team of handlers surrounding her at all times can't keep hydrated. ..."
"... "Undiagnosed?" Seriously? She is admittedly under the care and supervision of some ..."
"... As someone who has suffered from pneumonia three times in his life, the fact is that when I was at my sickest point in each battle (high fever, massive coughing, exhaustion), at no time did I become spastic. A person who loses complete motor function due to pneumonia needs to get rushed to a hospital, not her daughter's apartment. ..."
"... I agree with the pneumonia claim being dodgy. Does not add up to what happened on the tape. ..."
"... Has anyone commented on the two women who to appear to be nurses who are accompanying Clinton? ..."
"... PS the dropping metal thing looked like it might be a lipstick. ..."
"... One of the 'nurses' appears to be her personal doctor, Dr Lisa Bardack, who was named in the press release stating that Hillary has pneumonia. ..."
"... In these photos you can see Dr Bardack appearing to take her pulse as they walked and also appearing to test Hillary's motor skills by asking her to squeeze her fingers. Also notice when her pulse is being taken that Hillary puts her right hand flat on on her chest – she does this a lot – does she do it to hide/control a tremor? ..."
"... I remember back in the day laughing at the efforts of the old Soviet Union or North Korea trying to hide the health failures of their leaders… welcome to the club ..."
"... I wish Hillary well and hope she recovers from what ever ails her. However, watching the two videos prior to her entering the car, you can see she is leaning against the chrome pillar for support, her right shoulder is significantly lower than her left, then as she walks forward she can't control her head, her right foot goes completely backward and is dragging along the ground, then she collapses into the car. Perhaps a doctor can explain all this, but I have had pneumonia three times and never had these symptoms. ..."
"... I also wonder what the little metal vile or what not was that dropped from her pants or around her as she was falling. ..."
"... I've been privately comparing her Chappaqua MD to Michael Jackson's MD, in that ..."
"... Her medical report looked like it was written by Hillary's lawyers, ..."
"... She's been awfully amped at some of her events, which could be Adderall or other upper-ish drugs, which a conservative MD might be reluctant to prescribe regularly to someone of her age. But the idea of drug interactions is actually sorta obvious and should have occurred to me. ..."
"... Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical care, which tends to be substandard. Maybe it's b/c of the secrecy, i dunno… but it tends to be lousy. ..."
"... extend that thought to all professional services. I get the impression that despite their wealth, many celebrities are awful bad at finding competent service providers. ..."
"... Indeed, when I volunteered at a treatment centre, a fair number of high-functioning chemically-dependent patients (C-level execs, senior clinicians, politicians) came in as - and this choice of words is intentional - victims of bespoke top-flight one-2-one primary care as provided by luxury outfits in London's Harley Street or "hospitals" ..."
"... What usually pushed the patients I saw over the edge - and gave the medicine-as-consumerism practitioners sufficient worry to finally throw in the towel - was an episode of physical collapse as both the doctors and their unfortunate charges fell off the tightropes they'd been walking. ..."
"... You'd expect someone at Hillary's level to have a top doctor at a NY teaching hospital but you can't keep secrets in places like that ..."
"... When it comes to VIP patients if anyone were to access their records you better have a reason. Those are the only patients where the officials take Hipaa seriously. Fired, fined and lose your license. Hope that gossip rag pays well. ..."
"... My reaction to that is why the hell didn't she step down at that time, at least for a while, if her memory was so compromised? If she was so affected by a concussion, she was obviously not well enough to be conducting business as SOS. ..."
"... Yet she uses that as an excuse now in relation to her total disregard for security concerns and that makes it all okay, regardless of the outcome created? ..."
"... Not just meds being out of wack. It could be drug abuse. As if any one would deny any thing she wanted. This would enplane why they felt it necessary to be less than forthcoming on the issue. ..."
"... I highly doubt it is pneumonia. What grandmother with a serious illness show up at her daughter's house with a not even 3 month old and a two year old? There's campaigning and then there's the family dynasty. I doubt even Hilary's ambitions would put herself ahead of her grandkids. Regardless, it is poor judgement and more fodder for Trump. ..."
"... If intentional "Here's a woman who cares more for herself then her child or grand children" ..."
"... If unintentional "Here's a woman who's judgement is so poor she puts her family at risk with a contagious disease. If she's that unthinking about her actions towards her family, what about America's families." ..."
"... Chelsea took one for the Team. Any detour to a hospital or other non-private space would have sparked untold media frenzies. Oh, wait… ..."
"... Ms Clinton and Mr Mezvinsky's apartment has six and a half bathrooms, a home office and den, plus a 252-square-foot planting terrace and a private storage unit. ..."
"... My guess is, though, that Chelsea's was the only place they could go that was close by and where they were guaranteed to be able to control the situation. Had she been taken to a hospital, there's no way any of what transpired would not have ended up being leaked. ..."
"... How many hands did Clinton shake between receiving her diagnosis and being on medication for 24 hours? ..."
"... Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that all the coughing Clinton does she does into her hand, not into her elbow, so she's pretty much a traveling Typhoid Mary. ..."
"... Yes, I suppose 6+ bathrooms would be required in the Clinton family. ..."
Hateful?! afisher, if we hate you, it is because, like your idol, you
never reply with a straight answer when engaged on your talking points.
I think you owe us - all the American people - much, much more than that.
afisher– It's obvious you missed the fact I was 'speaking' tongue-in-cheek when I
commented, as I was referencing an earlier comment regarding Warfarin being
used to eradicate rats. (That and the *wink* I'd added sailed right over
your head, apparently). Hateful? Yes. I've grown to hate Clinton for her complete dishonesty.
First she says she turned over all the emails, and then Oops! The FBI
found thousands more.
She said she didn't have classified info on her personal server.
Oops! Proven to be a lie once again.
In response she said she didn't know how to distinguish classified emails
from others.
Really?! Remember, she was a senior partner at a law firm before entering
the White House as First Lady.
As to my "ignorance"?
THAT I take exception to. Education does not come just from books or schooling.
"Hateful and ignorance"?
If you're still paying off that student loan for a college education, you
should demand your money back.
My mere h.s. education taught me better than that.
I don't expect her to participate in the debates, even if she doesn't
drop out. I think that is the plan all along unless she's really behind
in the polls.
"But on April 17, 1973, Nixon stunned reporters by saying that he had
conducted an investigation that raised the prospect of involvement by White
House officials."
"Mr. Ziegler told a puzzled press corps that this was now the "operative
statement," repeating the word operative six times. Finally, R. W. Apple
Jr. of The New York Times asked, "Would it be fair for us to infer, since
what the president said today is now considered the operative statement,
to quote you, that the other statement is no longer operative, that it is
now inoperative?" "
Now we need to recycle more Nixon people and have Dick Cheney endorse
HRC's health, perhaps by saying. "Many people thought my health was suspect
in 1999, but, through medical science, I've been able to continue to "serve"
my country until the present day." Maybe the Clinton campaign is reaching out to Cheney today..
And Nixon's politically inspired war on drugs did have rehab and treatment
as part of the plan, which was largely removed by subsequent administrations
who ramped up prison time.
I've read that Nixon was for socialized medicine, but it wasn't good
enough for Teddy Kennedy, who helped kill it. Sometimes cynical, self-serving people do good things when pushed, while
compromised "good" people do harmful things.
If Clinton is elected, one can only hope she follows the "good" NIxon
model. but my fear is she will be an even more hawkish Obama, cynically
saying one thing while doing another.
The Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed Nixon to do things, but
that countervailing force is gone now.
He also nominated L. Powell, of the infamous "Powell memo" , to the SCOTUS…and
while he(Nixon) might have publically postured and declared-"we're all keynesians
now", the new deal was being hijacked (Hayeked) where it mattered.
If Hillary really does have pneumonia - who knows, though, as the announcements
and reporting have not necessarily been paragons of candor - it is serious.
Pneumonia can turn fatal to old folks (68 is plenty old enough), sometimes
when it seems to be under control. At the least, it can be debilitating
for months.
As for her use of Coumadin it's been well-known and pretty widely reported
for years.
The media speculation about her health, though, is little more than the
usual political season bullshit. Believe nothing; it's all crap. No matter
who is purveying it.
I experienced pneumonia at age 39. I was given antibiotics and told to
go home and rest. The next week of my life was nothing short of a near death
experience and for a couple of months thereafter, I was in a physically
weak condition. If Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, as the
AP has reported, her entourage would have had to not only carry her into
her car, they would have had to carry her out as well, and probably with
an IV still attached.
I don't know whether I've ever had pneumonia, but I've had both bacterial
bronchitis and type A influenza. My experiences were quite bad, although
not as severe as yours. In both cases, it took a month for me to fully recover.
When I had "walking" pneumonia, I could only pray for a cough as mild
and infrequent as hillary's seemed to be. Every time I had to cough, which
was constantly, I had to wrap my arms tightly around my ribs and squeeze
because otherwise the pain was unbearable.
Something's fishy here. Whatever her problem really is I found it strange
her handlers floated out the term, "pneumonia." Why use such a scary, ominous
sounding word when something more benign, like a "mild respiratory ailment"
would've sufficed just fine?
Sounds like the beginning of "plausible deniability" exit possibilities
have begun.
Exactly, she should have been resting. IF she was diagnosed with pneumonia,
she should have suspended activities for a few days. She is not President,
there was nothing vital for her to do this weekend. Send delegates to the
fundraisers, and offer a statement about 9/11.
There was no reason for her
to soldier on this weekend. Oh, but it would have fueled the rumors. No,
it would have done a lot to end the rumors. She gets up in front of the
press, and notes that they know she went to the doctor, she has developed
a mild case of pneumonia and as sad as it makes her to miss X, Y and Z she
is going to take the weekend to rest and allow the antibiotics to get started.
"I will be sending __________to this event, and Chelsea to represent me
at the 9/11 memorial" or something like that.
But instead she ends up having an episode that is clearly NOT pneumonia
and there are at least two damning videos about it. Of course that means
there is the other question: does she really have pneumonia or was that
the least problematic excuse they could come up with?
And if you find the speculation 'feverish' and "unpleasant" I suggest
you turn off the media, the news and the internet until you hear otherwise
because this is not going to go away, and even if it fades unless she starts
leaping up stairs, stops coughing and frankly never has a moment of confusion
on this campaign again it will start all over. Largely because most people
do not believe Hillary Clinton or her people about anything, and have no
reason to do so especially when their stories don't really add up.
But he delivered his lengthy inaugural address in a pouring March rain.
Hillary would at least have an umbrella. (Didn't Obama at one of his inaugurations?
Or have I mixed a remembered picture from some other occasion with memories
of an inauguration?)
Hillary is done. The video is absolutely damning and it was taken from
three angles. Metal objects were falling out of her pant leg. During her
big coughing spell, there was video of her vomiting mucus into a glass and
then drinking it. She's had her Dukakis moment and doesn't know it yet.
Obama has said Trump is unfit to serve as president and other
comments like:
"I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president," Obama said
at a news conference in California after a meeting with southeast Asian
leaders. "And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American
people. Being president is a serious job. It's not hosting a talk show,
or a reality show."
I used to think that right wing conspiracies about an Obama third term
were bullshit, through and through. But now I am concerned about a peaceful
transition in power. Will Obama give the reins to Trump? Will he put off
the election until there is a better result?
More importantly, will the American people be okay with that?
Could you post the links to those videos, I haven't seen the one with
the metal things falling out of her pants leg or the one with her drinking
vomit.
pre-9/11 memorial, one allegation floating in the conservative blogosphere
was that Hillary Clinton wears a catheter given some odd bulges in some
Clinton photos.
just repeating what I read…i'm in the camp that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
unfortunately I doubt anyone will get Clinton to raise her pant legs
in public.
I had to wear one of those catheters for about a week after a procedure.
I had the smallest one available and there is no way the wrinkles in those
pictures accounts for the actual size of an empty bag, let alone one with
natural fluids. It's nonsense.
The mucus glass video is a total fake. Watch the source video, there
is clearly no green blob (though your source is a much better edit then
the one I saw on twitter).
As far as the fall, I have seen only two video with distinctly different
angles (main 45 degree angle and then one slightly off centered) and then
a third that is the same is the main video but mirrored laterally. I have
no idea why no one else points that out or why people are claiming it is
a third angle.
So let's give the old gal, who is no respecter of truth and decency herself
I would have to observe, a break, ok? Because we are such careful kindly
people who want to make sure of all the facts we think we have access to
before making any kind of statement or judgment about events. The Dem campaign,
the ants eating the aphids (see my little post below) being all about honesty
and issues and all that. Because "we" are "better than that," and so we
get our wings eaten off and milked of our sustenance and provide handy snack
food for the Foraminifera Rulers…
I am not advocating proving any breaks of excuses (if this is what you
mean). I am of the opinion that (in our dichotomous world) Trump is a poor
candidate, but that Clinton needs to go. That said, we need to
make sure the supporting material is real. I find the glob video highly
suspect, especially as the globes appear to disappear in translucent water
and glass as soon as the glass is brought down from her sip.
Well what do you imagine will happen if we decide not to be honest to
those who aren't honest. The resurrection of Bernie Sanders candidacy in
time for the election via our strategic lying or something?
Nah. So why not preserve an attempt at objectivity being we are going
to get screwed regardless.
Our real enemies aren't the rulers who act in
their interest but the corporations, if we know a way by pure deceit to
defeat them it might be more than worth it. But just getting tweedledee
instead of tweddledum acting in their name not really. All we've done is
pervert our own capacity to perceive reality for a non-plan. Our politicians
already take advantage of our gullibility to believing whatever (Iraq had
WMD etc.).
You're absolutely right about the mistakenly described "different" angle
that is actually a mirrored image, which I myself didn't catch either until
you mentioned it on my post of the video yesterday. (It's obvious of course
from the direction the van is facing, but the eye doesn't always catch the
"obvious.") The better angle from almost directly behind Clinton is harder
to find as a standalone video, and I haven't seen it posted as much. Here's
the best link I could find in a quick search.
She wasn't vomiting mucus, she lost – or deliberately spit out – the
cough drop she had put in her mouth earlier. I've done that myself, usually
out of fear of inadvertently inhaling the cough drop if I'm hit with a spell
of coughing.
That's my take as well, she was just trying to do it discretely.
Thing is, if we saw her occasionally spit a cough drop into a handkerchief
and then make a joke about all the talking she does, she might be seen as
more human and therefore likeable.
Epilepsy as a side effect of something tramatic versus Pneumonia. Fancy blue Zeiss lenses are sometimes used to treat epilepsy.
Short-term, often predictable loss of motor control is common.
An aide being close at all times, as in the person guiding her to the van,
would be expected.
Pneumonia does not produce motor issues but is often accompanied
by powerful bouts of coughing. Pneumonia does not require an aide but generally
involves lots of bed rest. It doesn't lead to rapid dehydration either.
She was there for less than an hour.
She didn't cough in the video and she couldn't stand on her own when
she moved from the post.
If they had planned better they would have said that Hillary had a bout
of food poisoning. Instead it was the explained as the heat and then, Hillary
showing no obvious symptoms, trying to imitate Typhoid Mary. I thought politicians
were better at fibbing than this.
These strange and erroneous notions about pneumonia and its effects are
spreading and they're pernicious. There's no way for us to be certain the reports of Hillary having pneumonia
are true or not, but her visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or
long untreated case of pneumonia, symptoms which can include shaking, dehydration,
feeling faint or passing out, high fever, "out of body" experience, severe
cough, and so on.
The people who are reporting their own experiences with pneumonia in
this thread can testify. I've been there too. I had a severe cough for weeks.
Motor problems seemed to hit from out of the blue. I passed out in a supermarket
line. When I finally got to the ER they hooked me up to an IV stat because
I was so dehydrated. I was in the hospital for eleven days on IV antibiotics
and fluids. And it was months before I recovered fully.
All of Hillary's visible symptoms are consistent with such a severe case
of pneumonia.
On the other hand, it could be something else or something else and pneumonia.
It's serious. And it could be deadly even if treated.
[H]er visible symptoms are consistent with a severe and/or long untreated
case of pneumonia
However, the facts of the situation are not. As far as "severe" goes, according to her release, she was diagnosed
on Friday, and given antibiotics. As anyone who has suffered bacterial respiratory
infection knows, antibiotics will usually get you on the road to recovery
pretty quickly. Combined with plenty of fluid intake, she should have been
out of the woods, not hurtling towards a complete physical breakdown. Also,
the prevailing message is that its's a "mild" case and that the real bugbear
is dehydration. It stretches credulity to suggest a person with a team of
handlers surrounding her at all times can't keep hydrated.
"Undiagnosed?" Seriously? She is admittedly under the care and supervision
of some medical staff. Pneumonia is fairly easy to spot if you're
examined. It's not like she's homeless or someone avoiding medical interaction
because of lack of insurance or funds.
As someone who has suffered from pneumonia three times in his life,
the fact is that when I was at my sickest point in each battle (high fever,
massive coughing, exhaustion), at no time did I become spastic. A person
who loses complete motor function due to pneumonia needs to get rushed to
a hospital, not her daughter's apartment.
While you caution against speculation, you actually engage in some pretty
tenuous, and I believe dangerous speculation in an attempt to lend credence
to what is obviously a poor, belated cover story.
You are way too optimistic re the curative powers of antibiotics. You've
got no idea how long she had it. And I've had much less serious infections
that have not responded well to meds. I'm as healthy as a horse yet I've
had multiple instances of it taking more than one course of antibiotics
to do much.
Having said that, I agree with the pneumonia claim being dodgy. Does
not add up to what happened on the tape.
Has anyone commented on the two women who to appear to be nurses
who are accompanying Clinton? They are in the video, both are
wearing identical navy blue dresses with short sleeves and both wear
flat beige colored shoes. They help Clinton into the vehicle.
I just wondered if it was standard procedure for medical personnel to
always travel with presidential candidates.
PS the dropping metal thing looked like it might be a lipstick.
One of the 'nurses' appears to be her personal doctor, Dr Lisa Bardack,
who was named in the press release stating that Hillary has pneumonia.
In these photos you can see Dr Bardack appearing to take her pulse
as they walked and also appearing to test Hillary's motor skills by asking
her to squeeze her fingers. Also notice when her pulse is being taken that
Hillary puts her right hand flat on on her chest – she does this a lot –
does she do it to hide/control a tremor?
It's also interesting that Dr Bardack just happened to be immediately
on hand when required – so it's not just a nurse but a doctor by her side
at all times now?
(Don't like using an obviously right wing website for the photos but
it's the best I can find at the moment).
I remember back in the day laughing at the efforts of the old Soviet
Union or North Korea trying to hide the health failures of their leaders…
welcome to the club … I wonder when the body double appears?!
I wish Hillary well and hope she recovers from what ever ails her.
However, watching the two videos prior to her entering the car, you can
see she is leaning against the chrome pillar for support, her right shoulder
is significantly lower than her left, then as she walks forward she can't
control her head, her right foot goes completely backward and is dragging
along the ground, then she collapses into the car. Perhaps a doctor can
explain all this, but I have had pneumonia three times and never had these
symptoms.
Even before she moves her head is shaky and cocked upwards. It doesn't
look good. I also wonder what the little metal vile or what not was that
dropped from her pants or around her as she was falling.
Oh, duh, I NEVER thought of that, that her meds could be what's messing
her up. I've been privately comparing her Chappaqua MD to Michael Jackson's
MD, in that
1. Her medical report looked like it was written by Hillary's lawyers,
2. You'd expect someone at Hillary's level to have a top doctor at a
NY teaching hospital but you can't keep secrets in places like that and
3. She's been awfully amped at some of her events, which could be
Adderall or other upper-ish drugs, which a conservative MD might be reluctant
to prescribe regularly to someone of her age. But the idea of drug interactions
is actually sorta obvious and should have occurred to me.
Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical
care, which tends to be substandard. Maybe it's b/c of the secrecy, i dunno…
but it tends to be lousy.
"Many 'celebrities' (esp. secretive ones) receive concierge medical care,
which tends to be substandard."
extend that thought to all professional services. I get the impression
that despite their wealth, many celebrities are awful bad at finding competent
service providers.
Indeed, when I volunteered at a treatment centre, a fair number of high-functioning
chemically-dependent patients (C-level execs, senior clinicians, politicians)
came in as - and this choice of words is intentional - victims of bespoke
top-flight one-2-one primary care as provided by luxury outfits in London's
Harley Street or "hospitals" of the kind where a liveried footman helps
you from the limo at the entrance.
The drug regimes these places offered usually started with uppers or
downers to help, in the words of Philip Marlow, with the occasional "humps"
in the road; except of course, eventually it was all humps.
Then came the polypharmacy in often ever more bizarre and scarcely feasible
doses and combinations.
What usually pushed the patients I saw over the edge - and gave the medicine-as-consumerism
practitioners sufficient worry to finally throw in the towel - was an episode
of physical collapse as both the doctors and their unfortunate charges fell
off the tightropes they'd been walking.
When it comes to VIP patients if anyone were to access their records
you better have a reason. Those are the only patients where the officials
take Hipaa seriously. Fired, fined and lose your license. Hope that gossip
rag pays well.
Yves, I hadn't thought of that either. Good point offered by ambrit.
Excuses don't cut it with me, however. The end result is still the same.
I'm still having a problem with her saying that she doesn't remember
certain 'security briefings' back in 2012 due to her concussion. WHAT?
My reaction to that is why the hell didn't she step down at that
time, at least for a while, if her memory was so compromised? If she was
so affected by a concussion, she was obviously not well enough to be conducting
business as SOS.
Yet she uses that as an excuse now in relation to her total disregard
for security concerns and that makes it all okay, regardless of the outcome
created?
I have the same feelings about any drugs she may be on or medical condition
she obviously has if she's not willing to reveal it. She is not currently
well enough to be elected POTUS. The excuse for her behavior doesn't change
the facts her health is obviously compromised in some way, as it was then,
and should disqualify her.
Which, of course, is why she and her team are trying to hide it.
It's 'her turn' no matter what, apparently.
Is she setting the stage for if/when she starts a war with Russia, so
she can then fly above the destruction on Air Force One and blame her poor
decision on her meds this time?
Not just meds being out of wack. It could be drug abuse. As if any
one would deny any thing she wanted. This would enplane why they felt it
necessary to be less than forthcoming on the issue.
But then there is that cage little thing called the lack of evidence.
I highly doubt it is pneumonia. What grandmother with a serious illness
show up at her daughter's house with a not even 3 month old and a two year
old? There's campaigning and then there's the family dynasty. I doubt even
Hilary's ambitions would put herself ahead of her grandkids. Regardless,
it is poor judgement and more fodder for Trump.
If intentional "Here's a woman who cares more for herself then her
child or grand children"
If unintentional "Here's a woman who's judgement is so poor she puts
her family at risk with a contagious disease. If she's that unthinking about
her actions towards her family, what about America's families."
Once you connect the 9/11 event with that head bobbing incident. She
has something serious going on with her health. Ironically, she may actually
be telling the truth when she says she can't remember things about the e-mail
server, if she has Parkinson's.
By Sunday, and assuming she started on the antibiotics on Friday, she
had at least 24 hours of medication on board. And assuming she was not running
a fever, she would not be considered to be contagious when she arrived at
her daughter's.
Also, let's remember that Chelsea's apartment is no cold-water flat;
it is a 5,000 sq. ft. space that cost $10 million.
Here's a link to some photos and more .
Ms Clinton and Mr Mezvinsky's apartment has six and a half bathrooms,
a home office and den, plus a 252-square-foot planting terrace and a
private storage unit.
The couple will also enjoy two dishwashers, two washer/dryers, his
and her maze-like closet spaces and commodes, as well as natural light
flooding the female dressing room – with double-sided vanity mirrors.
'Wives eyes light up when they see the closets,' said Ms Lazenby,
the daughter of James Bond actor George Lazenby.
'They smile and say they'll need more clothes to live here. Their
husbands just shake their heads.
'The long apartment, located at 21 East 26th St enables 'one spouse
to be fast asleep while the other has a huge dinner party. All on one
floor,' she added.
One person who toured the building, which was built in 1924 by luxury
textile manufacturer Clarence B. Whitman & Sons, joked that residents
of The Whitman will have a longer walk to their kitchen than many New
Yorkers have to the corner store.
So…my point is that in a space that large, there was little danger of
exposing the babies to anything contagious.
I'm sure they do, but with 24 hours of medication, and assuming no fever
(and assuming she even had pneumonia), she likely wasn't contagious anyway.
In fact, most day care facilities/homes and schools permit children to
return under those same guidelines.
My guess is, though, that Chelsea's was the only place they could go
that was close by and where they were guaranteed to be able to control the
situation. Had she been taken to a hospital, there's no way any of what
transpired would not have ended up being leaked.
How many hands did Clinton shake between receiving her diagnosis and
being on medication for 24 hours?
Pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that all the coughing
Clinton does she does into her hand, not into her elbow, so she's pretty
much a traveling Typhoid Mary.
Sorry, but my head's still spinnin' over the "6 1/2 bathrooms", which
begs the question how full of 'it' must a couple with 2 small children be
that they require that many bathrooms?
I remain disgusted with the fact Hillary claimed they were 'broke' when
they left the WH, and only able to afford '2 houses, Chelsea's education,
and helping out relatives'.
Yes, I suppose 6+ bathrooms would be required in the Clinton family.
"Why Are The Media Objectively Pro-Trump?"
[Paul Krugman,
The New York Times
]. He's got a point. After
all, the press systematically suppressed stories
about Sanders, who would have been a stronger
opponent for Trump than Clinton.
At the end of the day, I have concluded that my
focus on Hillary as of late (vs. Trump) has as much
to with my disgust for the mainstream media as
anything else.
To see these organs, which have destroyed this
country by keeping the people uninformed for
decades, now rally around a sickly, corrupt,
oligarch coddling politician as the empire enters
the collapse stage is simply too much to stomach.
Although I'm still voting 3rd party, it's now become
obvious that if my sentiments are widely reflected
across the country, Donald Trump will win the
election handily. As I tweeted earlier today:
The only positive thing to happen during this
election season is the death of mainstream media.
With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed,
there is no coming back.
Another positive thing is the demise of the
Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off,
the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is
worse though I tend to detest the Clinton
dynasty more especially now the its present star
is mucking the place up.
Another positive thing is the demise of the
Bush dynasty. And if Donald Trump pulls it off,
the Clinton dynasty. I can't decide with is
worse though I tend to detest the Clinton
dynasty more especially now the its present star
is mucking the place up.
Speaking of losing credibility… here is a
real shocker via The Hill:
CBS News edited a video clip and
transcript to remove former President Bill
Clinton's comment during an interview that
Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic
presidential nominee, "frequently" fainted
in the past.
Bill Clinton sat down with CBS's Charlie
Rose on Monday to try to clear the air
around questions regarding his wife's health
after she collapsed while getting into a van
at a 9/11 memorial ceremony on Sunday.
"Well, if it is, then it's a mystery to
me and all of her doctors," Bill Clinton
said when Rose asked him if Hillary Clinton
was simply dehydrated or if the situation
was more serious. "Frequently - well, not
frequently, rarely, on more than one
occasion, over the last many, many years,
the same sort of thing's happened to her
when she got severely dehydrated, and she's
worked like a demon, as you know, as
secretary of State, as a senator and in the
year since."
But the "CBS Evening News" version cut
Clinton's use of "frequently" out. And a
review by The Hill of the official
transcript released by the network shows
that Clinton saying "Frequently - well, not
frequently," is omitted as well.
Their credibility has eroded constantly with
the rise of alternative methods of
communication…it's just the election cycle that
lays it bare, like rain washing away a bunch of
soil where roots have already died.
According to evolving campaign lore, Donald Trump's son called failed Republican
candidate John Kasich ahead of Trump's VP pick in July and told him he could
be "the most powerful vice president" ever-in charge of foreign policy, and
domestic too-if he agreed to come on board.
While Trump's people have
denied such a lavish entreaty ever occurred, it has become a powerful political
meme: the Republican nominee's lack of experience would force him to default
to others, particularly on the international front, which is a never-ending
series of flash points dotting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East like a child's
Lite Brite.
On the Democratic side there is no such concern-Hillary Clinton has plenty
of experience as a senator and secretary of state, and was a "two-for-one" first
lady who not only took part (unsuccessfully) in the domestic health-care debate,
but
passionately advocated (successfully) for the bombing campaigns in Bosnia
and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they
are both hawkish.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was an apt pupil of Bush and Cheney during the neoconservative
years, voting for the Iraq War in 2002 and serving as one of David Petraeus's
cheerleaders in favor of the 2007 surge. He has since supported every intervention
his fellow Republicans did, even giving
early praise to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for the 2011
intervention in Libya.
On the other side, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is as far from the Bernie Sanders
mold as they come: a centrist Democrat who supports a muscular, liberal-interventionist
foreign policy, and who has been pushing for greater intervention in Syria,
just like Hillary Clinton.
If veeps do matter-and as we saw with
Dick Cheney , in many ways they can, bigtime-the non-interventionists can
expect nothing but the status quo when it comes to war policy and the war machine
at home for the next four years. Under the right conditions, Pence would help
drag Trump to the right on war and defense, and Kaine would do nothing but bolster
Clinton's already hawkish views on a host of issues, including those involving
Syria, Russia, the Middle East, and China.
If anything, Pence could end up having more influence in the White House,
said Bonnie Kristian, a writer and
fellow at Defense
Priorities , in an interview with TAC . "With these two campaigns,
I would predict that Pence would have more of a chance of playing a bigger role
[in the presidency] than Tim Kaine does," she offered. Pence could bring to
bear a dozen years of experience as a pro-war congressman, including two years
on the foreign-affairs committee. "He's been a pretty typical Republican on
foreign policy and has a lot of neoconservative impulses. I don't think we could
expect anything different," she added.
For his part, Trump "has been all over the place" on foreign policy, she
said, and while his talk about restraint and Iraq being a failure appeals to
her and others who would like to see America's overseas operations scaled back,
his bench of close advisors is not encouraging.
Walid Phares ,
Gen. Michael Flynn ,
Chris Christie ,
Rudy Giuliani : along with Pence, all could fit like neat little pieces
into the Bush-administration puzzle circa 2003, and none has ever expressed
the same disregard for the Bush and Obama war policies as Trump has on the campaign
trail.
"On one hand, [Trump] has referred to the war in Iraq and regime change as
bad and nation-building as bad, but at the same time he has no ideological grounding,"
said Jack Hunter, politics editor at
Rare . If Trump leaves the policymaking up to others, including Pence, "that
doesn't bode well for those who think the last Republican administration was
too hawkish and did not exhibit restraint."
Pence,
Kristian reminds us , gave a speech just last year at the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in which he called for a massive increase in military
spending. "It is imperative that conservatives again embrace America's role
as leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy," Pence said, predicting
then that 2016 would be a "foreign-policy election."
"He embraces wholeheartedly a future in which America polices the world-forever-refusing
to reorient our foreign policy away from nation-building and toward restraint,
diplomacy and free trade to ensure U.S. security," Kristian wrote in
The Hill back when Pence accepted his place on the Trump ticket
in July. Since then, he has muted his support for Iraq (Trump has said Pence's
2003 vote doesn't matter, even calling it
"a mistake" ). Clearly the two men prefer to meet on the issue of Islamic
threats and the promise of "rebuilding the military," areas where they have
been equally enthusiastic.
Meanwhile, former Bernie Sanders supporters should be rather underwhelmed
with Kaine on national-security policy. On one hand,
writers rush to point out that Kaine split with President Obama and Hillary
Clinton just a few years ago, arguing the administration could not continue
to use the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIS
in Iraq and Syria. He also proposed legislation with Sen. John McCain to
update the War Powers Act; the bill would have required the president to
consult with Congress when starting a war, and Congress to vote on any war within
seven days of military action. That would tighten the constitutional responsibilities
of both branches, the senators said in 2013.
On the War Powers Act, Kaine gets points with constitutionalists like University
of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, who said Kaine's effort "recognizes,
as we all should, the broader problems with the War Powers Resolution as currently
written-and with the contemporary separation of war powers between Congress
and the executive branch." But on the issue of the AUMF, Vladeck and others
have not been so keen on Kaine.
Kaine has made
two proposals relating to the AUMF, and both would leave the door open to
extended overseas military combat operations-including air strikes, raids, and
assassinations-without a specific declaration of war. The first directs the
president to modify or repeal the 2001 AUMF "by September 2017"; the second,
authored with Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps the 2001 AUMF but updates the
2002 AUMF used to attack Iraq to include ISIS.
A revised AUMF is likely to do precisely what the Bush administration
sought to do in the run-up to the Iraq War: codify a dangerous unilateral
theory of preemptive war, and provide a veneer of legality for an open-ended
conflict against an endlessly expanding list of targets.
While he might be applauded for trying to strengthen "the rule of law on
foreign policy," said Kristian, it's not clear he wants to do it "to scale back
these interventions." As a member of both the armed-services and foreign-relations
committees, he has already argued for greater intervention in Syria, calling
for "humanitarian zones"-which, like "no-fly zones" and "no-bombing zones,"
mean the U.S. better be ready to tangle with the Syrian president and Russia
as well as ISIS.
Plus, when Kaine was running for his Senate seat in 2011, and Obama-with
Clinton's urging-was in the midst of a coalition bombing campaign in Libya,
Kaine
was much more noncommittal when it came to the War Powers Act, saying Obama
had a "good rationale" for going in. When asked if he believed the War Powers
Act legally bound the president to get congressional approval to continue operations
there, he said, "I'm not a lawyer on that."
If anything, Kaine will serve as a reliable backup to a president who is
perfectly willing to use military force to promote "democracy" overseas. He
neither softens Clinton's edges on military and war, nor is necessary to sharpen
them. "Does Tim Kaine change [any dynamic]? I don't think so," said Hunter,
adding, "I can't imagine he is as hawkish as her on foreign policy-she is the
worst of the worst."
So when it comes to veep picks, the value is in the eye of the beholder.
"If you are a conservative and you don't think Trump is hawkish enough, you
will like it that Pence is there," notes Hunter. On the other hand, if you like
Trump's attitude on the messes overseas-preferring diplomacy over destruction,
as he said in his
speech Wednesday -Pence might make you think twice, added Kristian. "I'm
not sure Pence is going to further those inclinations, if indeed they do exist."
To make it more complicated, the American public is unsure how it wants to
proceed overseas anyway. While a majority favor airstrikes and sending in special-operations
groups to fight ISIS in Syria, only a minority want to insert combat troops
or even fund anti-Assad groups, according to an
August poll . A slim majority-52 percent-want to establish no-fly zones.
Yet only 31 percent want to to see a deal that would keep Bashar Assad in power.
A tall order for any White House.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.
"... If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we have seen and probably will see from Clinton. ..."
"... The Putin-did-it comments on that article are depressing and ..."
If Donald Trump really is doing Presidential
Campaign as performance art, it may turn out that his
Doctor's letter about his awesome health is the most
brilliant aspect of it. Call me wild and crazy but I'm
beginning to think that item with its sheer obvious
level of BS was a fairly brilliant parody of what we
have seen and probably will see from Clinton.
Of course, he isn't and that means it is just taking the BS to the nth degree
at least until we see the new Clinton release.
RE: poisoning - gee, who is next in line
behind Hillary? I mean, on the Dem side? This
whole "political season" is looking more like
something out of the Borgia era. And there is
no history of one part or another of the CIA
poisoning people like Fidel Castro or whatever,
and how many parts of the CIA and the other
bits of runaway Empire would like Clinton gone
so maybe they could slide a Biden into the slot…
"Questions for the presidential candidates on nuclear
terrorism, proliferation, weapons policy, and energy"
Can we first stop talking about nuclear terrorism like it's actually a thing?
If no terrorists managed to get the bomb during the deluge of corruption and
broken bureaucracy that was the collapse of the USSR (yes, NATO and Pentagon,
the Soviet Union also isn't a thing anymore), then none ever are.
No nuclear
country, be it Pakistan or anyone else, is dumb enough to hand over a nuke.
Can you imagine the witch hunt that would ensue if someone turned a city into
a mushroom cloud? Assuming WW3 didn't just start right then and there. No amount
of money would make the certain risk of getting caught worth it.
All that leaves is a dirty bomb, which is actually a whole lot of effort
for something that is no better than an infinitely easier fertilizer bomb.
If Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic nominee had to leave the race,
the DNC would need to gavel back into session and re-do the process all over
again. The DNC consists of more than 200 members, selected by Democrats in
all 50 states as well as the chairs and vice chairs of each state party.
Except this time, the average Joe rank-and-file Democrat would be shut out;
it is the DNC officials that were railed at throughout this year's campaign
who are afforded the power of finding a replacement.
Article
III, Section 1
, the clause that provides the DNC with that power, is
as straightforward as can be: "The Democratic National Committee shall have
general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between
National Conventions...This responsibility shall include...filling vacancies
in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President."
Now the idea that Hillary can beat Trump looks pretty questionable. Probably
corrupt honchos at DNC now realized that by sinking Sanders they sunk the Party.
Notable quotes:
"... "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952 ..."
"... Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party! ..."
"... Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else. ..."
"... You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap. ..."
"... - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that? ..."
"... I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. ..."
"... It's now owned by the corporations anyway. ..."
"... Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), ..."
"... Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. ..."
"... The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection. ..."
"... That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power." ..."
"... murdering people a central tenet of one's life? ..."
"... Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting). ..."
"... Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all! ..."
"... Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump." ..."
Yesterday was one of those days when there was a settlement.
"It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth
of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced
some statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the
concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation,
they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and self-interest.
People can only stand so much and one of these days there will be a settlement."
– Senator Harry S. Truman, Congressional Record, 1937
"The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman,
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic
Action, 1952
Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate
'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since
the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not
party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our
third party… the Up Yours party!
You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but
Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders
has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and
the Grey Lady's fish wrap.
Here is similar grossly biased "reporting": On The Hill's home page today
there is an article link:
Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump
Sanders also tops Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.
From the article itself:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Republican presidential rival
Donald Trump by double digits in a hypothetical general election matchup,
according to a poll released Wednesday.
Clinton would edge out Trump by 13 points in a one-on-one
vote, 51 percent to 38 percent , in the latest NBC News/Wall
Street Journal survey.
Trump, the controversial GOP front-runner, would lose even more soundly
to Bernie Sanders should the Independent Vermont senator secure the
Democratic nomination.
Sanders bests Trump by 18 points, 55 to 37 percent.
Sanders picked up a surprise win over Clinton in Michigan on
Tuesday, though Clinton expanded her overall delegate lead.
I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz
station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux
Nooz Lite like the plague. A lot of their stenographers also work for
Fox (really). It's a pointless exercise in futility to waste my valuable
time and brain cells listen to Faux Nooz National Propaganda Radio.
NPR here in san diego said it was a win for hill because she got more delegates
when missippi and michigan are added together…
...Comments re sanders
not having congressional support are actually even more true with trump,
he will face considerable obstruction, while clinton will take the reins
from obama on the fly and drive the buggy full tilt down the road to neo
libbercon utopia
...Capitalism is essentially the same as every other social system since
the dawn of civilisation.
The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure
Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work;
the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper,
leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.
The nature of the Leisure Class, to which the benefits of every system
accrue, was studied over 100 years ago.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions",
by Thorstein Veblen.
(The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight. It was written a long time
ago but much of it is as true today as it was then. This is the source of
the term conspicuous consumption.)
We still have our leisure class in the UK, the Aristocracy, and they
have been doing very little for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all
provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone else doing all the
work.
Feudalism – exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism – exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends
and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
All this was much easier to see in Capitalism's earlier days.
Malthus and Ricardo never saw those at the bottom rising out of a bare
subsistence living. This was the way it had always been and always would
be, the benefits of the system only accrue to those at the top.
It was very obvious to Adam Smith:
"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."
Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and
"unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness
and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.
We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the
economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side. This is probably
why inequality is rising so fast, the mechanisms by which the system looks
after those at the top are now hidden from us.
In the 19th Century things were still very obvious.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep
them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman
seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
The function of the system is still laid bare.
The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative
and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury
and leisure.
The majority only got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour
movements.
By the 1920s, mass production techniques had improved to such an extent
that relatively wealthy consumers were required to purchase all the output
the system could produce and extensive advertising was required to manufacture
demand for the chronic over-supply the Capitalist system could produce.
They knew that if wealth concentrated too much there would not be enough
demand.
Of course the Capitalists could never find it in themselves to raise
wages and it took the New Deal and Keynesian thinking to usher in the consumer
society.
In the 1950s, when Capitalism had healthy competition, it was essential
that the Capitalist system could demonstrate that it was better than the
competition.
The US was able to demonstrate the superior lifestyle it offered to its
average citizens.
Now the competition has gone, the US middle class is being wiped out.
The US is going third world, with just rich and poor and no middle class.
Raw Capitalism can only return Capitalism to its true state where there
is little demand and those at the bottom live a life of bare subsistence.
Capitalism is a very old system designed to maintain an upper, Leisure,
class. The mechanisms by which parasitic, rentier, "unearned", income are
obtained need to kept to an absolute minimum by whatever means necessary
(legislation, taxation, etc ..)
Michael Hudson's book "Killing the Host" illustrates these problems very
well.
When you realise the true nature of Capitalism, you know why some kind
of redistribution is necessary and strong progressive taxation is the only
way a consumer society can ever be kept functioning. The Capitalists never
seem to recognise that employees are the consumers that buy their products
and services and are very reluctant to raise wages to keep the whole system
going.
A good quote from John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society",
which in turn comes from Marx.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything
except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is
not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path
to his own destruction"
Marx made some mistakes but he got quite a lot right.
Jeez, no one told me that global employees are the global consumers.
So as we all increase profits by cutting labour costs we are effectively
cutting our own throats.
You got it.
Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United
Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that
little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build
walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists
were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state."
When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of
what the psychologists call projection.
That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality
to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to
it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from
republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment
is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring
of power."
Really, this is one of Earth's oldest taboos, and yet it has become cool
to flaunt your not-caring-about it like that is some badge of honor, and
better qualifies you for office. How about if say kindness, and honesty,
and "first, do no harm," were exalted into the same high positions? Everything
would be flipped on its head, and in my opinion, we'd be a lot better for
it. It's not silly.
I was in the bag for Bernie from day one, but I like to look ahead and
see what I'm getting myself into. My own expectations of B. Obama were quite
low in 2008 but he managed to underperform them (while the Republicans came
through in grand style).
So what does a thoughtful person see ahead with a President Bernie? Can
we cast a clear eye? How does this play out?
I'm thinking of looking to possible comparisons to previous (J. Carter,
'76) and current (J. Corbyn across the pond, in progress) cases of, well,
political outsider from the left end up at the head of the table (and maybe
some similar qualities of temperament), and what happened then.
If memory serves (and please set me straight if it doesn't) Carter, always
something of a loner, had a hard time getting traction with Congress, as
well as considerably confusion and derision from the (nascent, burgeoning)
neo-con right that came after, and from within his own party, and the press.
I believe I see a similar overall pattern (again, correct me) for Corbyn,
only more so: press is skeptical to derisive, and Labor is still procession
what it all really means for them (how much of this is sheer denial of inevitable
transformation and how much is stubborn inertial durability is not clear
to me). Lessons here might serve not only to anticipate some obvious pitfalls,
but perhaps to sidestep (or even strategically use) some of them.
A Bernie presidency would represent a huge challenge for the Dem establishment,
not completely different from what the Republican party is going through
but with different specifics (and also a later start). Without a continuing
and active grassroots network (writing, marching, contributing, putting
up candidates, etc), I think Bernie would be dead in the water come 2017.
And accepting a largely negative reaction from business, how much will be
a unified front, and what kind of internecine squabbling could take place?
Can a post-presidential grassroots activist network flip Congress in
two years (it took the Tea Party 4-6)? I don't think Sanders has a second
term without significant success in his first? The stakes are even higher;
2020 is a census year, as in: redistricting time.
Also, the disenfranchised usually get hit the hardest when systems shift
gears (for example, loss of some good policies in the ACA rollout, not to
mention the website). Given a hostile business front that will try to punish
the vulnerable, what is the blowback on a $15 minimum wage.
Thoughts? Links? Take your time, no rush (yet). Lambert?
Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses,
it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource
the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do
things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that
they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls,
nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan,
which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless
one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant
(which itself is interesting).
For example, to pick on the YouGov poll that underestimated younger voter
support for Sanders. It was conducted a week ago, and the poll found that
1/3 of Dem primary voters had not firmly decided on their candidate at that
time. YouGov also included a sample that was 30% for those under 45, whereas
exit polling from CNN suggests actual turnout for those under 45 was more
like 45%. And it gave a 32 point advantage to Sanders in the under 30 crowd,
whereas CNN's exit poll suggested an actual spread of more like 62 points.
When things go as expected, the various assumptions and simplifications
hold. But that very bias makes it virtually impossible to predict discontinuous
change, since by definition, that is assumed away by the modeling.
But isn't the takeaway there that she lost the independents in large
numbers? How does she win a general election without young voters and independents?
My guess is she would pivot in her usual clumsy manner away from the more
left-leaning positions she's been pushed to take, and go back to her comfort
zone as a center-right Rockefeller-style Republican with a (D) after her
name.
I am less concerned that she is screwed than that the Dem establishment
would rather screw us all over in order to protect their comfortable positions
in the power structure.
Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward.
She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat
would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all!
Independents have been breaking hard for Sanders (not just in Michigan).
In CNN's exit polling, for example, in SC – a state Clinton won by a huge
margin – Sanders still actually won voters under 30 (by 8 points) and Independents
(by 7 points). Go to a state that was competitive, like Massachusetts, and
it's a 30 point spread for voters under 30 and a 33 point spread on Independents.
CNN didn't even do exit polling in places like Minnesota and Kansas. In
Oklahoma, Sanders won under 30 voters by 65 points and Independents by 48.
Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that
does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't
trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton
about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump
a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.
But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who
have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to
56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit
more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."
Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to
mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed
up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category
is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."
... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996
dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."
... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands
of dollars from
speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to
run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest
...
... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national
security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated
Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets
to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held
opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that
go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking
money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining
that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never
been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way
or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.
She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents'
positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with
it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary
Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined
center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning
up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone
you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.
Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title
is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison,
and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive
trenches for decades.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ
You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to
play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
23 hours ago
Yes, Hillary is dishonest.
Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental
to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread
judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such
groups judge well.
She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at
in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied
by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered
and prepared lie.
If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will
be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the
way.
They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
22 hours ago
To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions
from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not
make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money
given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the
chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.
Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have
personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest.
By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.
The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about
how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated
in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit.
Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.
So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence
her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they
have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute
money to candidates who don't not help their causes.
Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted
for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it.
As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist
haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli
hawk.
All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.
It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for
the party's presidential nomination in 2016.
I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so
again in November.
Do I have reservations? Surely.
But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as
Republican nominees ....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League
of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats.
Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?
Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang.
I would have voted for him.
Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while
campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call
out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.
JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue
because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted
in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.
LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better
choice than Senator Goldwater.
Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because
of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist.
In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist.
I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.
And so on and so forth.
Saints don't rise to the presidency.
David Underwood,is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights
18 hours ago
Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot
of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot
at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing
his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us
have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.
The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps
them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting
up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions,
unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.
Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20
hours ago
I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply
untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:
-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to
trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible.
I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on
national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's
behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of
the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National
Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in
Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012:
the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S.
not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server.
Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its
face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer
health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion
of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.
I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence,
but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November
only because the alternatives are worse.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because
she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals
and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens
to be a woman.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady,
most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"
Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody
vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested
in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
Winchestereast,
No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches
to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do
so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to
announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional
Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better
judgment.
Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago
This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the
most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons
took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They
eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things
they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to
have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things
donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.
It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons
just aren't trustworthy.
1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.
pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago
"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."
Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin"
committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly
traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the
truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.
Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money
is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats
advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United?
Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting
money out of politics when the Republicans do.
So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special
interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment.
Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.
Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting
Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.
Rima Regas,is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours
ago
Mark,
I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics
that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed.
People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money
over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up
to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on
Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the
Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.
That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and
over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled
and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal
punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is
my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay.
Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.
Money and greed are the root of all evil.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return
for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney)
who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both
actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance"
requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be
interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be
in a position to provide such considerations.
And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she
says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest
as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the
briber?
With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices,
someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably
during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage),
it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".
AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago
People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't
take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal
through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever
position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling
changes.
Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking
money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything
from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets
to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about
the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence
of American voters.
Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical
thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness.
Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically
or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's
observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from
colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions
of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and
people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning
off that spigot down the line.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton
is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy
record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his
antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because
he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton
down the National throat.
What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire
is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the
lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons
and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore
de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton
must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who
have or may yet deny her the crown.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public
official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite
numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded
with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would
sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join
a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract
from the firm they formerly regulated.
In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily.
She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she
was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say,
Janet Reno giving a speech.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who
did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did
not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced
by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters
suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing
ever changes.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the
party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for
HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the
brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence
and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have
suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United
there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.
We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling
money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other
politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.
organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago
If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be
still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my
family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say
were lies, they would get fired.
As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November
if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly
I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her
intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her
integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately
need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a
divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military
- this will not serve the United States well.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago
It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon
the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives,
that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.
Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from
Boston 15 hours ago
She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.
You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill
and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt
over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But
she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and
now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.
In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how
she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her
and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that
is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is
a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary
is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe
not. But unlikeable for sure.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago
I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision
to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would
be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.
Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable,
you could write in "none of the above"
But vote the rest of the ticket.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago
@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave
Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the
special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored
by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!
Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts
politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds
of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to
take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof
of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the
right wing majority in Citizens United.
Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts
politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence
policy is bad.
amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago
So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins.
Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written,
means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet
she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their
investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits
with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning
the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he
deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became
a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive
to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word.
Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro
quid. Ditto for Hillary.
The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide
and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise
not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent
crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper
over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much
the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives
stand for boggles the imagination.
Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours
ago
Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that
you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He
got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle
class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should
all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.
Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.
Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago
``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person
tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton
does well.''
Excuse me?
She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.
You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the
Clintons.
Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago
She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming
under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up
in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's
"secret plan."
"What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the [US neoliberal] elite
are afraid of something terrible. " -- that a very asute observation,
" Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. " -- also true, although
neoliberalism still successfully counterattack in selected countries and
recently scored two wins in Latin America (Argentina and Brazil)
Notable quotes:
"... The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible. ..."
"... I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. ..."
"... Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event. ..."
"... Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home. ..."
"... But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday. ..."
"... She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics. ..."
"... Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb? ..."
"... She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion. ..."
"... She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication. ..."
"... no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy. ..."
"... she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it ..."
"... This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere. ..."
"... Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health? ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. ..."
"... As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress. ..."
"... the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing. ..."
"... It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak. ..."
"... Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. ..."
"... Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look. ..."
"... Forget Parkinson's, what about MS. ..."
"... after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. ..."
"... I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail. ..."
"... It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras. ..."
"... Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) ..."
"... Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van? ..."
"... So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades? ..."
"... my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged. ..."
"... So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". ..."
"... I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves. ..."
"... Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true. ..."
"... Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better ..."
"... Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability. ..."
"... If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming. ..."
"... Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS. ..."
"... I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm ..."
"... This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474 ..."
"... More"? Like how many more? ..."
"... How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll! ..."
"... "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph ..."
"... At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care. ..."
"... If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate? ..."
"... Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode. ..."
"... The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine??? ..."
"... Here's why. 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. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed." ..."
"... seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
"... If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
I agree with all of Anne's great comments above on Hillary Clinton's
9-11 fainting episode.
The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned.
Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary
Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation.
It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible.
It can't be Donald Trump; he is one them. Instead, I presume it has
to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams.
Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down.
If you want to blame anyone for all this armchair medical discussion,
look no further than Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided
to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address
what was clearly some kind of medical event.
Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend
any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have
been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the
great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy
of her own home.
Whatever this is or was, it is how she chose to handle it that has led
to all this discussion.
But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from
the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and
not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media,
giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders
– when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to
join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this
past Thursday.
She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next
night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again,
she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says
she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics.
Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she
falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post
for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she
lose her footing on the curb?
So, first we heard she wasn't feeling well. Then we heard she was overheated
and dehydrated. Some hours later, we were told of the pneumonia diagnosis,
and then – like a miracle – she comes walking out of her daughter's apartment
building looking quite chipper. Did she get IV fluids? Who knows?
She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication
of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave
her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was
not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had
a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on
blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her
to recover from the concussion.
She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which
I presume she takes medication.
Could she be having periodic bouts of vertigo as a result of the concussion?
Other effects that linger, or pop up from time to time? Doesn't seem unreasonable,
but here's the thing: we are never going to know if that's the case, because
unlike pneumonia for which you can take an antibiotic and be done with,
ongoing – no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call
into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her
candidacy.
So, she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation
after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people
stop asking questions about it – but the problem is that this method just
adds to the sense people have that she's still hiding something and so the
speculation goes on.
This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's
exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation
everywhere.
Yes to this (Anne. September 12, 2016 at 9:57 am):
My real issue with this whole event is that, had Clinton not collapsed,
we wouldn't know anything about the alleged pneumonia. It's the same
old story: she does what she wants until events conspire to force her
to make public whatever it was she wanted to remain private.
And even
then, she continues to hold close as much information as possible for
as long as possible, before being more or less forced to get it all
out there.
Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past
them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about
her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about
her health?
It's probably a lot worse than a case of walking pneumonia. The video
below was posted to yootoobs three days before Hillary Clinton collapsed
into her own footprint like a world tower of trade:
A) Parkinson's Disease has several stages. Hillary appears to be ten
years into the progression at least and somewhere in the disease's middle
stages. Also,
B) the medication used to treat Parkinson's has its own serious side
motor effects, which she seems to exhibit.
C) And finally C, not only does Parkinson's debilitate its victim randomly
and episodically, and ultimately in its latter stages will make keeping
up a daily schedule of activities impossible, it also is typically accompanied
by non-motor symptoms of delusions and hard mood swings: eg, anxiety/depression
and rage.
If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment
leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should
ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. Naturally
being Hillary Clinton she would hotly refuse and retreat to her bunker with
Eva Braun to lean on, but the certain ferocity of her reaction doesn't relieve
the party leadership of this responsibility.
I long ago abandoned any hope for that party, but in an alternate universe
where they had not become mobbed-up and corrupt to the core, Clinton would
get a public call from party elders now to do the right thing for the country
and endorse a substitute candidate.
Having lived with someone who had Parkinson's, and after looking closely
at the video of her on 9/11, I think she has Parkinson's.
As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms
stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this
"offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait,
and happened to him when he was under stress.
Just too many things, the coughing, the blue sunglasses, the falling,
the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing.
It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough
to admit she is weak.
What is concerning is that after the DVT Hillary would have been placed
on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is
that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a
fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting
someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole
situation is crazy. Feel bad, don't like her, adios-time to take all that
foundation money and retire.
It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction.
With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment,
this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment
the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras.
Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into
the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) If this is so, that isn't a
response for someone fainting as much as perhaps the attempt to hide symptoms
from observers. Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van?
Was this an attempt to divert attention from the real issue?
As a great philosopher once said; "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit
out of my hat"
So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's
home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in
the Everglades?
This is the tell, if she actually had pneumonia they would not just have
hustled her off to Chelsea's place, my guess is at Chelsea's they could
give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the
candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged.
So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly,
sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can
actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". (So we got the last
8 years of disaster because of the candidate's dermis, and we"ll get the
next 4 years of disaster because of the candidate's pubis).
I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers
on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia
story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic
or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there
is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe
they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still
have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves.
Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed
to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else
made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with
just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from
the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that
that stuff might be true.
Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths,
as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she
can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later
she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not
saying her opponent is any better
Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly
so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate
question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination
without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term
at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive
health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability.
It's not the candidate's prerogative to decide upon what information
the voters will make their choice.
If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks
wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior
for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming.
Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis
and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this
(two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing
use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether
the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks
of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the
key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the
position as POTUS.
"More"? Like how many more? If this is more opining by her Chappaqua
MD, that does not qualify as "records". This is beginning to resemble the
forced drip of e-mails…..
How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits
the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take
the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's
been associated with – that's how they roll!
What continues to boggle my mind is why she doesn't seem to understand
that THIS is why such a significant segment of the electorate doesn't trust
her; it's so obvious, and yet she continues to employ this strategy and
it could cost her the election.
Assuming she is healthy enough to participate in the first debate, it
should be a doozy.
At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public
that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run
for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment
whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size,
and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care.
The Fantastic Voyage scenario might actually be more believable.
In other words, it's just one more thing that doesn't really matter because
only those in her basket of adorables believe anything she says – and they
believe everything, no matter how the story shifts and changes.
If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get
into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first
debate?
The stress of being thrust into the biggest "fishbowl" imaginable
( largest TV audience ever being predicted) with all the "marbles" on the
table would freak out the healthiest human alive.
Everyone is going to be
watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole
episode.
What drama! I wouldn't be surprised if some pretext is found to nix the
debate. The risk for her is just too great, IMO, of course.
Each time she releases medical records, it gives her chorus another chance
to sing (in harmony) that she has clearly demonstrated that she
is healthy. After a few of these, the corporate press will feign impatience,
and any talk about Hillary's health will be cast aside as coming from conspiracy
theorists. No one will ever question why the issue wasn't resolved up front
with a full disclosure.
All of this is fine (I guess) except if she is hiding Parkinson's, which
is completely debilitating as far as the Presidency is concerned.
The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine???
Now, the REALLY cynical might conjecture that Clintoon is thinking the
BEST meme to save the election for herself is that she spins it that she
pulls a William Henry Harrison – don't worry about voting for Clintoon!!!
I'll only be president for 30 or so days!
Hey, your not really voting for me Your really voting for Kaine!
Only decades later is the Clinton tomb excavated and it is revealed that
she was a Disney animatronic programmed by Goldman Sachs – those "speeches"
were really charades to allow the cables to be plugged in so the updated
software could be downloaded…
If the media is in the pocket of the Clintons, why now are we finding
out about her "illness" ….hmmmmm….
"If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the
9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly "overheated." Her campaign
says she is fine now. You probably wonder if the "overheated" explanation
is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical
condition. I'm blogging to tell you it doesn't matter. The result is the
same.
Here's why. 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.
Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might
not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little
episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play
action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone
on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed."
Teh Guardian is running reports and every accompanying image is of some
other event with Killary stepping, smiling, unassisted into a car. What
a disgrace that shill sheet is.
robnume September 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm
Having worked in an emergency/trauma center for years, no, I won't say what
I did as I like anonymity, it seems to me that Hillary could likely
be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. Upon a diagnoses of
this kind, one can expect to live from 3 to 5 years. If diagnosed in
2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses,
she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia
is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular
dementia.
Rosario September 13, 2016 at 3:03 am
I used to think all the health speculation with Hillary was sexist and bogus
until her ordeal Sunday. The pneumonia diagnosis is absolutely bizarre and
doesn't quite line up with her visual symptoms at the 9/11 memorial. Pneumonia
was the best her staff could come up with? I guess they think we live in
a world without the internet and Youtube. Hillary doesn't look like she
had pneumonia Friday at the fundraiser. The same day she was apparently
diagnosed, which implies the first day of treatment when symptoms for bacterial
infections are at their absolute worst. She actually looked like she was
in her element, bright as rain. In addition, how in the hell do you have
a "pneumonia episode"? Apparently it came on real hard Sunday morning (ironically,
the time of day when the body is most capable during illness) then magically
went away an hour later for her to have a chipper, non-coughing, non-fatigued
photo op with a little girl (it was so identity politics staged it was comical)...
"... It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them. Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors. ..."
"... We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance and the abuse of human rights. ..."
"... Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas. A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse ..."
"... [It would be better if] Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms for the next ISIL. ..."
"... Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering. ..."
"... You are just a political writer, paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open the newspaper. ..."
"... No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo elitist. An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal. A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist. A major political ignoramus... And a very decent little tabby cat. All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious. Self assured. Nassau county bright boy now aged but undaunted anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html September 22, 2014 Snap Out of It By David Brooks President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html October 21, 2014 Putin and the Pope By Thomas L. Friedman One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html December 20, 2014 Who's Playing Marbles Now? By Thomas L. Friedman Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html December 21, 2014 Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion By Paul Krugman Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html January 27, 2015 Czar Putin's Next Moves By Thomas L. Friedman 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.... anne : , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 04:38 AM http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html September 15, 2015 Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html September 20, 2015 Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ilsm -> anne... , Monday, September 12, 2016 at 03:18 PM Putin might ask why us army jihadis fought with cia jihadis in Assad's country? a subject one thug can raise with a bigger thug. ..."
"... Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous [neo]Liberal goon squad ..."
"... thugs -- A target of colonial masters ..."
"... if your candidate cannot go to a hospital.... looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's Putin or Clinton neuopathy? ..."
"... I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again. ..."
"... In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous [neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet ..."
"... innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama Clinton not Putin. ..."
"... Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA intervention? That's what you're going with? ..."
"... No of course not! The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and Israel. ..."
"... Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock. ..."
"... The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing the way for war and invasion. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
"... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
It is not wise to demonize foreign leaders or worship them.
Foreign policy needs sometimes to work with even some of the worst actors.
For example, Russia is in Syria and can either promote more violence or
work to end the civil war. Right now, they have agreed with the US to support
a cease fire.
Demonization of Russia led directly to the Vietnam War, the Cambodian horror,
the Taliban and a lot of bad outcomes.
We need to support institutions that work to guarantee and protect human
rights for all. A personality cult that worships leaders promotes intolerance
and the abuse of human rights. We need a strategy of building and strengthening
institutions that are committed to protecting ethnic minorities and offer
a change alternative to violent acting out.
Well said. One can debate the virtues and vices of Vladimir Putin indefinitely,
and historians will do so, but throwing the lives and security of young
Americans into the mill of short term political opportunism, at the service
of the campaign meme of the week, is not responsible.
Of course, Trump has
also behaved like a nincompoop in discussing Putin and Russia in ways that
do no display an ounce of statesmanship.
Who is "throwing the lives and security of young Americans into the mill
of short term political opportunism"?
I'm guessing you are saying Hillary is doing that by criticizing Putin
or something, but I can't fathom how you connect those dots.
Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
No, Krugman.
Krugman obediently parrots and amplifies whatever attack theme the campaign
decides to promote on any given week, and is clearly coordinating with a
number of other hyper-partisan "journalists" and apparatchiks, who sing
in harmony from the same hymn books. The man is a certifiable political
hack.
I'm surprised that Team D had not yet floated the charge that Putin gave
Clinton pneumonia with some infected umbrella pellet gun.
Paine -> sanjait...
No no
Krooogman is jus a useful moralistic idiot aiding and abetting [hillary
compaigh] with humanist [neo]liberal anathemas.
A policy of Russia constriction by uncle S and his posse
Paine -> Paine ...
Will Hillary take a forward policy stance on mother Russia.
Out do Barry- Kerry. I'm still hoping she's capable of evolution to good POTUS.
My best friends ardent fury at her bloody pals.
Has tempered me some. Nothing ever confirms convictions grounded in personal loathing
I've learned to love her since Bernie burned out over Pennsylvania or
was it Ohio ?
Paine -> Paine ...
However nothing about loving her requires me to support her legacy or her
entourage
Or like too many thin skinned compromises here. Attack those who can not find in their heart. Any love for such a compromised
saint
As dear Hill
ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
[It would be better if]
Current neocon democrats "display an ounce of statesmanship" and use any
before they send out the aircraft carriers, bombers, drones and CIA arms
for the next ISIL.
ilsm -> Dan Kervick...
Yes, Kerry talks while the DoD and CIA do the murdering.
gh : ,
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner. How is it possible that you remain so
leftist, in spite of all the evidence ? You are just a political writer,
paid to reflect your bosses views. A proper journalist would at least provide
a minimally balanced view. In your case we know your answer before we open
the newspaper.
What a shame.
Paine -> djb...
Tempest in a tea pot. No leftist calls krooogman a leftist. He is a a status quo
elitist.
An enlightenment humanist [interventionist neo]liberal.
A convinced self-deluded neo-classical economist.
A major political ignoramus...
And a very decent little tabby cat.
All rolled up into one pint sized ambitious.
Self assured. Nassau county bright boy
now aged but undaunted
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....
First of all, let's get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016
is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory
and is run by some of the same thugs....
Thug. I wonder if these bright liberals consider the word they like to use
so much ? u can feel their thrill every time they hurl it at a target. Long live the self righteous
[neo]Liberal goon squad
" historical --
a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India.
Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims,
usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed
by the British in the 1830s."
Dat is about as much heavy liftin as the lettered folk can handle: hurling
insults. Take dat. "Geeves, send them a message!" Message: Thugs! Mission accomplished and now we must rest.
ilsm -> Paine ...
if your candidate cannot go to a hospital....
looks like a serious neurolgic issue to me. Let the spin begin is trump's
Putin or Clinton neuopathy?
anne :
Paul Krugman terrifies me, simply terrifies me. A pusher of a Cold War,
a pusher of McCarthyism, a person who is obviously collecting a list of
names and only waiting to name names. I however will be no Krugman martyr
and am also collecting names and will name names even before being ordered
to and I have already decided who I will be naming first.
[ I remember reading John Kenneth Galbraith describe how when he was
being threatened by the original McCarthy, the strategy he chose was to
name McCarthy using every name he could think of. The strategy worked, and
Galbraith was forgotten by McCarthy. I suspect the strategy will work again.
]
anne -> anne...
I need to find the Galbraith reference, and I also remember that Krugman
was attacking Galbraith before, well, "the line forms on the right."
Paine -> anne...
Anne,
In the name of plain old fashion reasonable ness let's not turn krooogman the self righteous
[neo] liberal " crusader" into a new kold war reactionary liberal just yet
The conversion of one section of new dealers into
that rumpus of uncle hegomony.'s Dupes
Was awful enough.
Not to contemplate yet another wholesale herd like.
Transduction of their "liberal values"
In the name of individual liberty and the rights of humanity
What Economists Can Learn From Evolutionary Theorists
By Paul Krugman - European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy
I guess it is no secret that even John Kenneth Galbraith, still the public's
idea of a great economist, looks to most serious economists like an intellectual
dilettante who lacks the patience for hard thinking....
ilsm -> Pinkybum...
innuendo see as much deplorable assassination in moscow as folks dying at
Clinton hands. And those 250k killed in 5 years of CIA blundering in Syria are Obama
Clinton not Putin.
Ok, so on your planet the civil war in Syria was caused entirely by CIA
intervention? That's what you're going with?
So, not the tyranny of the Assad regime, supported by Russia. And not
the emergence of ISIS. Those, by your accounting, are not primary causes
of the conflict, but instead it was the meager support the CIA offered the
FSA alliance, according to you. Pfft.
ilsm -> sanjait...
No of course not!
The CIA is 'playing' 1300 year old schism in Islam. It is Sunni versus
Shiite, the rest in funding, equipping, cheerleading by GCC royal, US and
Israel.
Official Washington's "group think" on the Ukraine crisis now has a totalitarian
feel to it as "everyone who matters" joins in the ritualistic stoning of
Russian President Putin and takes joy in Russia's economic pain, with liberal
economist Paul Krugman the latest to hoist a rock.
China's Market Crash Means Chinese Supergrowth Could Have Only 5 More
Years to Run
By Brad DeLong
Ever since I became an adult in 1980, I have been a stopped clock with
respect to the Chinese economy. I have said -- always -- that at most, Chinese
supergrowth likely has five more years to run.
Then there will come a crash -- in asset values and expectations, if
not in production and employment. After the crash, China will revert to
the standard pattern of an emerging market economy without successful institutions
that duplicate or somehow mimic those of the North Atlantic. Its productivity
rate will be little more than the 2 percent per year of emerging markets
as a whole; catch-up and convergence to the North Atlantic growth-path norm
will be slow if at all; and political risks that cause war, revolution or
merely economic stagnation rather than unexpected booms will become the
most likely surprises.
I was wrong for 25 years straight -- and the jury is still out on the
period since 2005. Thus, I'm very hesitant to count out China and its supergrowth
miracle. But now "a" crash -- even if, perhaps, not "the" crash I was predicting
-- is at hand....
[ Twenty-five years of wrongness, why not another 25? Never ever ask
why such wrongness, however. ]
Peter K. -> sanjait...
"The weird existence of people who somehow loved Bernie Sanders while also
being apologists for Putin continues to defy the notion of cognitive dissonance."
The anti-war left sees the demonization of foreign leaders as clearing
the way for war and invasion.
The center-left Demcocrats' anti-democratic practices during the primary
were hypocritical. At leas Debbie Wasserman-Shultz was ousted as chair of
the DNC.
Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
The context is that a murderers row of 2002/3 vintage neocons has now adopted
the Clinton campaign as its preferred vehicle for its further murderous
adventures and interventionist follies. Apparently only the (very) elder
neocon leader Norman Podhoretz is not in yet.
ilsm -> sanjait...
Somehow Putin is weak on plundering his country.
Bush and Obama are $4,000B in WAR waste on Iraghistan and Yemen.
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason
without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making
unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially
in order to restrict dissent or political criticism." The term has its origins
in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting
roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression
against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their
influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents. Originally
coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator
Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning,
describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more
generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as
demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the
Warfare State
By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance
HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group"
that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex
and the security deep state.
The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the
troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror
profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy
will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes
active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at
home.
It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments.
In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security
and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric
Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal,
Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in
2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued
to grow.
Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National
Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser,
despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on
to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture
investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.
That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.
It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq
War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates
at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good
standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full
of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with
two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment
firm KKR & Co.
Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner
who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed
a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry
priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting
full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company
that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other
ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael
Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom
now have a line of access to Clinton.
Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas.
Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last
month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing
his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful
national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days
later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively
assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.
During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst
scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book,
he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's
supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program
as legal and ethical.
Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's
advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by
Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get
more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if
we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He
said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance
against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to
confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.
The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon
official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin
and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."
Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of
the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm,
the McChrystal Group....
"... I want to throw a chair at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio. ..."
"... Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest sideshow anecdotal. ..."
"... They also seem to have exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually disseminating all the talking points. ..."
"... Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly by NPR analysts. ..."
"... It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People, news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses. Excuses with a smell of skunk to them. ..."
"... They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might result in more creative and honest programming. ..."
Used to have NPR going from wakey until bedtime. Now, I read about roses
and meditate. Much more serenity. Now, my agitation comes from NC. And it's
because world affairs are agitating, not because I want to throw a chair
at the elitist propaganda coming from the radio.
Their political coverage is truly awful - horse race analysis cheerleading
for HRC, no substantive talk about issues just a constant human interest
sideshow anecdotal. The Bernie coverage was a disgrace. I was raised
on a steady diet of NPR, and realized the headlines are all the same as
when I was a kid: Middle East "violence," Israeli politics, poor person
suffering anecdote, refugee porn.
I tune in from time to time just to make sure it hasn't changed. What
change there has been seems to be ever more shrill neoliberal pablum spoon-fed
with small words as though to eight-graders. They also seem to have
exactly the same stories as same day's NYT - makes one wonder who's actually
disseminating all the talking points.
I stopped listening to them after they did a long, sympathetic piece
on how Israeli soldiers were traumatized by the injuries they inflicted
on Palestinian kids during the first Intifada. The idea that they should
suffer from implacable guilt was not not discussed.
Yah I know but I also learned from NPR Trump is bad because he likes
Putin who keeps invading nations and killing a bunch of folks and gives
govt contracts to his friends – unlike good USA. All stated matter of factly
by NPR analysts.
Yes, "hold on for the ride." Now even the MSM is split on whether to
all of a sudden be skeptical of the stuff Camp Clinton puts out re Hill's
health. If she quits due to ill health, can she keep her campaign contributions?
She's got Parkinson's disease, or at least severe aftershocks from her earlier
brain trouble. She's not gonna get better.
It's amazing how everything has to get sloppy around Clinton. People,
news papers, news shows, whatever. As soon as they decide to sign on with
Camp Clinton, they all have to start making excuses for her. Sloppy excuses.
Excuses with a smell of skunk to them.
And once they give in, it sticks to them. They can no longer be trusted.
Whatever you thought of them before is now forever clouded. They are ruined.
I don't know about Democracy Now - haven't listened lately. But Krugman
went from a columnist I respected to idiotic Clinton shill starting this
year. His attacks on Sanders and his supporters and his excuse making for
Clinton's Iraq vote totally destroyed his credibility for me. Maybe he is
worth reading if he stays far away from the subject of Clinton, but I no
longer care enough to find out.
And, all this on top of the constant, daily, weekly, and monthly, never
ending, stream of rancid revelations being unearthed regarding her shady
public/private financial juggling act. Like, simply running for President
isn't stressful enough.
I stopped listening after Bush, Jr. was elected and immediately cut-off
aid to foreign family planning orgs that mentioned mentioned abortion as
an option to their patients. Ol' Cokie assured NPR listeners it was no big
thing, nothing to see here, move along people. I tore the radio out of the
dash and threw it out the window…
I gave up on NPR when I got sick and tired of Cokie Roberts condescending
republican talking points. It is very much a megaphone for center right
elites.
I've read that people who work there say that if they did not do the
center right slant, they would lose a vast majority of their big donor funding.
They should loose those donors, it would be a cleansing act that might
result in more creative and honest programming.
I only listen to local public radio and tune away if there is NPR news
content.
Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) is an exception on local public radio. It
is awful and I will not listen to it, their programming has devolved to
whining elitist **** talk radio. It is insufferable.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
"... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
"... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
"... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
"... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
"... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
"... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
"... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
"... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
"... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
"... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
"... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
"... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
"... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
"... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
"... As president she's da bomb! ..."
"... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
"... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
"... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
"... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
"... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
"... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
"... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
"... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
"... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
"... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
"... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
"... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
"... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
"... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President
of the United States.
A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has
this on Clinton II:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of
American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently
attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the
guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy
heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said,
adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president.
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added,
"it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly
her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it
something else."
Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's
vessel, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, by the way, is also
a coward,
unprincipled and
greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would
anyone vote for her?
Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM |
Permalink
I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems
we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter,
I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect
of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president
that is not a Zionist stooge.
In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can
distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men
into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast
Jeb would be too obvious.
Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office.
Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible
foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She
will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).
Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe
Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter
with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and
we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign
malevolent monsters like Israel.
Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.
"There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."
Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who
might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote
anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more
wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different,
deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every
other candidate.
Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside
the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic
state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference
in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be
righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.
I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but
there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it
all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit
in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger,
fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.
Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of
his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is
looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that
the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.
"There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"
I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a
Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending
to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican
or Democratic establishment schmuck.
I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and
I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful
as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to
put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.
Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators
are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched
regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT
piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the
Democrats have to offer.
What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening
about as if they have been vindicated:
Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism,
which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's
detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives
historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments
I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly,
as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.
Incidentally,
where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?
Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid
rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid
genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the
American Establishment - as set out in the
Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean,
terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just
happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking
off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling
the world.
Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just
NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search -
read: collective punishment for the residents of the
illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't
been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.
Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped"
the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!
Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering
of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate
false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would
they?
Nah.
A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings,
saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in
the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli
jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.
But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?
Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally
insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily
Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest
moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out,
with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."
Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy,
dumb, joke. America deserves her.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in
favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York
hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian
problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought
it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however,
the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq
and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."
Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to
erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's
times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately
trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of
Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:
In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned
columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united
Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar
partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an
Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up
as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in
a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.
Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy
theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle
East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have
remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that
the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot
status quo.
This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed,
there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically
segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious
region in the long run.
My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous
column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even
drew up the
new map of the ME!!
Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that
allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!
And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas
Kristoff had this to say:
The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to
try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis
while accepting decentralization of government.
If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without
that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already
squandered far, far too much.
DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested
for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh
And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT with this:
THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined
the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country
need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned
from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles,
and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni
nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.
The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check
The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check
Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!
To review:
Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk,
blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will
probably be broken up.
Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this
whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of
the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?
Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!
She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN
version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the
women/whore
women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot
And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
(you know like antisemitic)
Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
Shuts the complaints right off!
Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public
orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported
Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around
comes around.
A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there
is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews
account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and
shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering
Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of
all that is wrong with America today.
lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist
stooge."
I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word
"Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used.
We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies
grand?
Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health
and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit
crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health
is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican
candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and
reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain
a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.
HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type,
the 'Third Way Up Your
Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and
environmental
protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.
That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim.
That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion
is flowing, then crafting
her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known.
Der Prevaricator.
What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs
Milliband) grifted
Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US
Humanitarian Aid
to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before
announcing
that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off
by 'anonymous
donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference
on Afghanistan in
London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but
in fact, that
speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts.
'Bicycling'.
Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency
$3.5 BILLION
theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E
by looting
his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being
audited, and
no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.
In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced
publicly, which
together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election
regulations,
is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One
Percent Club'.
"It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin
But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly
the Israelis
know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and
if G-d forbid,
Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.
There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly
with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In
combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people
greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not
think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.
"Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative,
the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
Because of her and it.
Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after
9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.
As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could
outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.
Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help
win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?
Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and
Israel is longterm DOOMED.
Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview
"Obama said:
'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region
that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in
contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states
included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a
day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.
I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark
colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with
Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for
all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.
Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan,
even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.
He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the
nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When
Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting
guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni"
insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.
He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary
will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.
It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire.
If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something
positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.
"That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was
some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?
the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:
"... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion
for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry
within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to
allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality
of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter
of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are
a danger to the survival of the rest of us.
Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations
by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit
each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause
for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing
so they compromise the survival of the whole species.
Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population
in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending
on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held,
though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another
10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they
will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.
The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what
they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in
a different environment or a different society. The second group act out
of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5%
and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they
are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed.
And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.
Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime
can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so
will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they
make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back
them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently
break."
James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of
you may want to give it a read:
psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal
or violent social behavior.
an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around
a fight to encourage the combatants"
Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself!
Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call
TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the
two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.
btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often
new sources... which is great. Thanks!
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.
This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections,
but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
It was apt in a small way that the first
endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been
Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the
chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about
the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear
that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See,
for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate
column "The
Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished
fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult
to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives
are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines.
And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations
came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk
that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently
and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see
the
work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends
and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but
the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in
office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were
wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals
of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published
a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled
or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or
invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members
of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised
the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President
Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found
it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you
recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others,
you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance
to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National
Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of
this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the
White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable
Roger Tamraz, for another example.
Related was the result of a House select
committee
on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China
of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee
issued a
report
in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton
administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax
(as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with
Chinese military-industrial associations).
Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations
(still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent
pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar
bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise
Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill
Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud,
hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they
got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary
Clinton's other brother,
Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation
and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned
as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom,
when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was
more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary
of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has
two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.
Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications,
too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another
scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of
Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something
simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership
with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably
have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to
look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.
China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our
defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are
important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover.
And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at
the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal
with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"!
So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't
want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing
that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the
Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely
has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other
agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this
is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty
is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is
ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either
of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently
was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of
her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him
for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What
may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness
and masochism to me.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and
the author, most recently, of
Arguably, a collection of essays.
"... 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.
In view of the recent events the old question arise again: Was Hillary Clinton already on warafin when she suffered her latest fall?
Notable quotes:
"... Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot. ..."
"... This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician. ..."
"... This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal. ..."
"... There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. ..."
"... Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual . ..."
Her
medical history includes two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in 1998 and 2009,
as well as a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in 2012. A thromboses is a clot;
basically, the formation of a solid plug inside a vein, a misfire of the body's
ability to plug holes and stop bleeding. While I could not find news articles
discussing the 2009 incident in further detail, the
1998 incident was a proximal DVT - one that had ascended into the popliteal
vein - an especially dangerous form of DVT that is most likely to cause a condition
called pulmonary embolus which can be fatal. A cerebral venous sinus thrombosis
is also a deadly condition, with a mortality of
approximately
10 percent and negative cognitive effects, though survivors make a good
recovery.
When anyone has multiple unprovoked clots, meaning there was no obvious reason
for the body to misfire it's clot formation system such as surgery or active
cancer, and especially when someone has a clot in an unusual location such as
the brain, an extensive workup is indicated to look for causes. Some such causes
include previously undetected cancers, inherited or random genetic disorders,
and autoimmune disorders. That workup was negative in Secretary Clinton's case,
per her doctor's letter. This is not unusual; there are many disorders that
we have not yet discovered, and in all likelihood Secretary Clinton's particular
clotting disorder happens to be one that has not yet been discovered.
When someone has such a clotting disorder, as a precaution patients are often
started on a medication to prevent the formation of clots. These medications
are known as anticoagulants or blood thinners. Secretary Clinton was started
on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces -
though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot.
What is the side effect of blood thinners? A greater chance of bleeding and
greater difficulty stopping a bleed once it happens. An elderly patient on blood
thinners who is subsequently injured in a car crash is a nightmare for a trauma
team. This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be
shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain
bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the
risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every
patient to make with their physician.
In Secretary Clinton's case, what is her risk of bleeding? Secretary Clinton
is over 65, and she has had multiple falls (in
2005, 2009, and 2011, and 2012); the 2009 fall resulting in a broken elbow
and the last one resulting in a concussion. According to
guidelines
put out by the American College of Chest Physicians, two risk factors puts her
in the category of high-risk patients, meaning her risk of bleeding while on
long-term anticoagulation is 6.5 percent per year. The mortality from a major
bleed is
approximately
10 percent. This does not include the possibility of an intracranial
bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal.
What is Secretary Clinton's precise risk? It is difficult to say. She does
receive excellent medical care, and presumably has her dose of warfarin closely
monitored by many professionals. In addition, she may soon switch to newer anticoagulants
which are easier to take and dose than warfarin, though it is unclear if they
are truly any safer.
Ultimately, all that can be said is this: There is a non-trivial possibility
that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. The worst
possible scenario? Trump and Clinton are nominated, and Clinton suddenly suffers
a devastating bleed in the middle of the campaign, leaving a likely underqualified
vice presidential pick to try and fight Donald Trump. However, the risk of this
is likely small; and it is not as if 74-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is free
of health risks either. Patients and doctors both hate uncertainty, and yet
we deal with it every day. I don't believe Secretary Clinton's increased risks
are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly
something to ponder.
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.
The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are.
Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this
fact using Russia as a bogeyman.
Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is
responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations
used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
Notable quotes:
"... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
"... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
"... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
"... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
"... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
"... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
"... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
"... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
"... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
"... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
"... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
"... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
"... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
"... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can
see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for
trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be
on us. I'm calling it now ;)
Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then
defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those
damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this
corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.
Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They
always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin
had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the
person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy
- and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road
of extreme "us versus them" ideology?
What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would
"aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid
Russia).
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.
Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why
did DNC act very anti-democratic?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.
Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own
words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy
and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert
the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations
have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The
SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary
system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often
wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much
of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative
it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the
elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their
jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences
we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and
be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians.
What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the
losers, as always.
Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked,
but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out
of sorts. :)
There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form
'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do
know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets
produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between
the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as
back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international
incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then
again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still
in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she
should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.
Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests
of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a
lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton
and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party.
The opposite has happened.
Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's
the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success
at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles.
Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the
task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008
election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.
As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC
is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.
That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those
damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS
more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon.
Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic
party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic
primary voters ???
Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite.
Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make
a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his
colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term
ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than
a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline
- she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway,
so she came out against it.
I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is
further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome
of an election ''.
Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence
the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour
.
Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of
an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime.
And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'.
Of course. Hillary is old-school.
Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The
point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to
minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should
be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders.
No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.
Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got
caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the
Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders.
They look pretty stupid!
Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state
actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these
emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm
the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing
a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.
Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference
to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian
and elsewhere.
But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired,
there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than
on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed,
is diversionary and inexcusable.
The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election
completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my
lifetime actually win this thing.
They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose
at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths,
and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery
in the primary process onto foreign actors.
Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and
obvious were her shenanigans.
This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable
price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings
(at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's
narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even
recognize.
The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the
emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth.
You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D.
Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party
trying to reform it from within.
A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one
of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be
a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack
up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.
4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt
DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans
2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic
brand!)
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians
that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always
blames his balls that hamper him".
If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this
whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding
there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and
the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections
of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!!
But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee
for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged
in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously
who thought this was a good idea?
How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing!
This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point
of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance
when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above
the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both
foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone
who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article
tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion
agsinst him ?!?
".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's
rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced,
in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize
his support.
****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone
to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May
5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish
heritage.
I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with
my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between
a Jew and an atheist."****
"Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according
to the email"
The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from
the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken.
This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.
Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process,
behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral
votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table
deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those
that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo
rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It
is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party
hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select
group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.
DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one
run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both
parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame
outstrip the will of the people.
Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system.
The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The
media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite
that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet
strings attached to the soulless politicians.
We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their
desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither
is truly qualified for this office.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought
to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
-John Adams-
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
-Ben Franklin-
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.
Looks like from this point Hillary is an underdog. Attempt to swipe under the
carpet her health problems failed. Version about pneumonia as fake as it sound
only made matters worse. Now she is officially a person with
"unidentified serious health problem" in this race. Does she
have an immunodeficiency ? For some reason Clinton Foundation put a lot of
efforts in helping AIDS patients.
She now will face perfectly reasonable questions about whether she's
physically up to serving as president. There are also strong doubts if this is
really 's pneumonia. And even pneumonia is a dangerous condition at her age.
Notable quotes:
"... the risk was enormous - and it's blown up in their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's that, once again, she's untrustworthy - and this time about her own health. ..."
"... Both of these candidates are too old to realistically carry out the responsibilities associated with arguably the most difficult, demanding job in the world. There is a minimum age for the Senate, and there should be a maximum allowable age to seek and serve in the executive branch. ..."
"... Why was the Friday diagnosis not made public, particularly in light of rampant speculation? Why did it take the candidate literally collapsing for the disclosure to be made? ..."
"... I'm a Democrat, a Medical Doctor, and will never vote for Trump. Now that I've made that clear, let me say that there's something wrong with this story. A patient of her age would never be diagnosed at home with pneumonia, much less a presidential candidate. A 68 year old with suspected pneumonia would be sent to the hospital for X RAYS. It doesn't make sense. ..."
"... In the video, it appears that she was suffering a seizure. She has no control of her movements and has to carried to the van. If it was dehydration or symptoms of pneumonia, she would not have appeared perfectly normal less than 2 hours later. You cannot rehydrate someone from collapse in 90 minutes. Her physician is hiding her condition which is fine, but the voters have a right to know her true health status. ..."
"... Something about all this just doesn't ring true. A diagnosis of pneumonia, made at home and not mentioned until after a serious public incident. A presidential candidate collapses at a public event and is not rushed to a hospital, but to her daughter's apartment. Looks like another attempt to control the flow of information and manage what the public knows. That is Hillary Clinton's stock in trade. ..."
"... It's kind of amusing to watch the story change. She's not sick. Well, allergies. Well allergies and today, just overheating. No actually, pneumonia. Las Vegas should offer odds in the various possibilities of the next iteration if the story. ..."
"... If her stumble hadn't been caught on camera, we wouldn't know that she had any health issues at all. ..."
"... Well, if this is a cover-up of some sort, it has gone too far. Whatever the outcome, the public will not forgive or forget. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton, who I once hoped to see elected, has spent the summer cozying the elites in very rarified airs and walking away with sacks of cash for it, while the very few public events she has recently and briefly attended, it is apparent that she is barely able to function. ..."
"... What I saw on film today from many different angles has me horrified and disturbed. That was not walking pneumonia. She should have been to the hospital, not an hour of rest at home, after that episode. Something it not right about this, and there will be a reckoning if the truth is not forthcoming. ..."
"... I think it is a mistake for Hillary and her campaign to try to blow this pneumonia diagnosis as no big thing. Pneumonia can be spread via breathing and coughing. Hillary has had at least two coughing fits, she has been in crowds, she hugged a little girl today and spent an hour or so in Chelsea's apartment (presumably Chelsea's infant was at home). ..."
"... So many commenters are worried what Trump will say but the video of Hillary buckling and being hauled into the van head- first is as bad as it gets, no one has to say anything. ..."
"... Alright. Let's buy the party line from Hillary's people about the pneumonia shtick, which was generated after multi-hours of secrecy into a PR disaster while holding her own press people - many sympathetic to her - in the dark. ..."
"... But at best it makes the unspoken party line that as her people were calling talk of Hillary health issues last week a 'conspiracy' she was being diagnosed with respiratory infections a the same time, unannounced and under the table. ..."
"... So she knew she had pneumonia, then hugged that little girl? After going to her daughter's apartment, who has very young children? That someone would have pneumonia is perfectly reasonable. That it's being spun like this is not. ..."
"... Unfortunately, it looks like Secretary Clinton is propped up against a stanchion, semi-conscious, and then proceeds to collapse as she is helped to the vehicle and lifted inside. ..."
"... Nonsense! First it was total denial. Then it was 'overheating' (on a pleasant NYC day.) And then when a pedestrian's video came out on Twitter, its 'a little pneumonia'. Nonsense. I've had pneumonia, your lungs get filled with fluid and you can barely breathe. And by the way, if she did have pneumonia, it was massively irresponsible of her to be in a crowd or to hug that little girl. No more lies. We have a right to know ..."
"... Once again team Hillary covered up the facts - until a viral video ruined the cover story - and the press lapped up the spin unquestioningly (even lying about the temperature at the event). Information about the health of the candidates is extremely important to the public but the press wont break ranks and act like real journalists. Makes one wonder about Hillary's one month absence from the campaign trial that the Times reported was unprecedented but was to raise money from fat cats. ..."
"... This is getting stranger and stranger by the day. Strange times call for strange outcomes: Get Sanders back on the wagon and trump the Trumpster as we all well know only he can. ..."
"... My theory, and the word is theory, is she knows she's quite ill but wants to cement her legacy as the first female President of the United States no matter how short lived it might be. ..."
"... The conspiracy of the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media, e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover up news about Hillary's health is what all Americans should worry about. ..."
"... It wasn't until the story got so big that the campaign, the New York Times, and the Washington Post could no longer ignore it that we learned about a diagnosis. ..."
"... I jogged today in NJ, 40 minutes from NYC, on a beautiful "cool" day unlike the hot days before. Was NYC really hot as described that caused her to become dehydrated/overcome by heat? Something ain't kosher here... ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton lost consciousness, called a syncope episode. She should have been brought to a hospital by ambulance. She needed to have full blood work, an EKG, a chest X-ray, a CT of the head, a neuro and cardiac consult. She needs to be on a cardiac monitor for 24 hours. Especially since she is on Coumadin a powerful blood thinner for previous blood clots which has significant complications. ..."
"... One more attempt to deceive the public for political purposes. I do not believe the pneumonia story. And why didn't they tell us about it in Friday when the diagnosis was made? Her physician should be careful, she should be deposed. Mrs. Clinton put herself out there and we have a right to know her health problems now that she collapsed in public at a routine low stress event. I am a licensed practicing Emergency Medicine physician for 35 years, Board Certified. ..."
"... Clinton didn't lose her balance, as the NYT put it, she collapsed and had to be carried to her car. My God, is the NYT, in its mission to relentlessly push Clinton's candidacy, now refusing to report simple facts? Have we reached a new low in journalism now? Clinton collapsed! I hope Mrs. Clinton the best in regards to her own health, but for the NYT to purposely refuse to report what everyone saw is outrageously dishonest. ..."
"... So, the focus group came back with pneumonia, eh? I can't think of any reason they'd lie about this. Btw, the weather service reported late morning Manhattan temp of 77F and humidity of 42% The media have led us to believe that the heat index was nearing 9.47 Trillion F...But they've never misled me before...sarc/off ..."
"... Pneumonia diagnosed on Friday, really? A dozen reporters follow Mrs. Clinton all day, did they visit the Mt. Kisco Medical Group? This isn't a condition you can diagnose over the phone, and someone as important as a Presidential candidate ought to have a proper diagnosis which would include x-rays and blood tests. ..."
"... Many of the comments are support Mrs. Clinton and claim a little pneumonia is not a problem. It may not be. The big issue here is TRUST. Can we believe what she or her camp says about her health issues? Anybody her takes her word on face value is a fool. She has lied to us so many times. ..."
"... NY I don't believe the campaign explanation. I think it is a fib. My sense is that Mrs. Clinton has had underlying health issues which have and will continue to be aggravated by the rigors of a Presidential campaign. To me, an undecided voter, she does not seem healthy and age has caught up with her in startling fashion. ..."
"... Did any of the commenters here actually see the video...?!? She passed out while standing up..! Is our president, the president of the United States going to need babysitting so she doesn't pass out on here feet, fall and hit her head again? It's like the Seven Plagues with you people... ..."
"... Ehhh, she fainted and was then carried the last couple of feet inside the van by 2 or 3 people; she also visibly loses one of her shoes in the process. How is she "fine" again? ..."
After Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia and put on antibiotics,
she did not, as her physician recommended, take time out to rest.
Instead, she attended a fundraiser featuring Barbra Streisand.
Then on Sunday morning, she attended the 9/11 commemoration,
became "overheated," and woozily wobbled rather dramatically. Ninety
minutes later she exited her daughter Chelsea's apartment building to
tell the press she was "feeling great." The Secret Service permitted
a young girl to come over to give the candidate a hug.
It was only a few hours later when her campaign finally announced
that she has pneumonia and is recovering.
So the campaign chose to lie. The potential reward was considerable:
namely, an absence of politically damaging news stories about Clinton's
medical condition. But the risk was enormous - and it's blown up in
their faces. Because now the story isn't just that Clinton is ill. It's
that, once again, she's untrustworthy - and this time about her own
health.
That's why the announcement that she has pneumonia will only fuel
more speculation about Clinton's physical condition, with potentially no
end in sight. The world saw her collapse, and 90 minutes later, the
candidate looked America in the eye and proclaimed that she was feeling
great. Except now we know that she wasn't.
Both of these candidates are too
old to realistically carry out the responsibilities
associated with arguably the most difficult, demanding
job in the world. There is a minimum age for the Senate,
and there should be a maximum allowable age to seek and
serve in the executive branch.
The presidency ages
everyone who assumes the duties; when it comes to the
White House, 50 is the new 70, not vice versa.
riclys, Brooklyn, New York
I sincerely hope Mrs Clinton's health improves . But why do I get the
feeling that this is not over? Why was the Friday diagnosis not made public,
particularly in light of rampant speculation? Why did it take the candidate
literally collapsing for the disclosure to be made?
What else are we not
being told, and what further public health-related episodes might we have to
witness? As with so many things Clinton, even answers lead to more
questions. Bottom-line though, let us all fervently hope that Mrs Clinton's
health is as good as we are being told it is.
Gladys Vazquez, Miami
I'm a Democrat, a Medical Doctor, and will never vote for Trump. Now
that I've made that clear, let me say that there's something wrong with this
story. A patient of her age would never be diagnosed at home with pneumonia,
much less a presidential candidate. A 68 year old with suspected pneumonia
would be sent to the hospital for X RAYS. It doesn't make sense.
Melissa Los Angeles
It wasn't a "stumble" - the way her head flailed it looked like
fainting or even a seizure.
@PISonny Manhattan, NYC
Pneumonia cannot be confirmed without an
X-Ray. She had a full day on Friday, what with her 'basket of deplorables'
speech, and then interviews to the press, followed by interview with Cuomo. When
did she have the X-Ray done?
Something does not add up here. More lies, more cover-up, more unfit.
Thomas, Corey 7 hours ago
In the video, it appears that she was suffering a seizure. She has no
control of her movements and has to carried to the van. If it was
dehydration or symptoms of pneumonia, she would not have appeared perfectly
normal less than 2 hours later. You cannot rehydrate someone from collapse
in 90 minutes. Her physician is hiding her condition which is fine, but the
voters have a right to know her true health status.
Mark Markarian, Pleasantville, NY
Yeah, Hillary's being treated for pneumonia and I'm Captain James Tiberius Kirk.
Larry NY,
Something about all this just doesn't ring true. A
diagnosis of pneumonia, made at home and not mentioned until after a serious
public incident. A presidential candidate collapses at a public event and is not
rushed to a hospital, but to her daughter's apartment. Looks like another
attempt to control the flow of information and manage what the public knows.
That is Hillary Clinton's stock in trade.
Michael Pasadena, CA
It's kind of amusing to watch the story
change. She's not sick. Well, allergies. Well allergies and today, just
overheating. No actually, pneumonia. Las Vegas should offer odds in the various
possibilities of the next iteration if the story.
OldNYCGirl, Boston, MA
If her stumble hadn't been caught on camera, we wouldn't know
that she had any health issues at all. Why did it take more than 8
hours for her campaign to disclose this after she left the ceremony? If
there is nothing to hide, why didn't they say something immediately
about the illness that was diagnosed several days ago?
Jack NY, NY
The problem with Clinton is that you have no way of
knowing what the truth is. A woman who would lie so easily and often about her
email debacle, not to mention her Benghazi testimony and her lies about some
video causing the attack in Benghazi, would find it also easy to lie about her
health.
As a former Obama voter, I'm going with Trump. He's not the greatest
candidate but at least he gives the impression of being honest -- sometimes too
honest. His faults are those of a non-politician and that's refreshing after
decades of phoniness n Washington.
Le Sigh Murrakuh
Looking over this timeline, how many hours
passed before this penumonia announcement, that should have been released as
soon as it became a diagnosis, not after a horrible episode of goodness knows
what that was we all saw?
As one of the reviled lefties who are on the outside
of either party, I want to see the lung x-ray. I was horrified to see the left dorso-lateral view that a citizen filmed today, as it was a terrible and real
medical emergency.
To learn she recovered for a short time at Chelsea's
apartment and then left again, all chipper in the public eye as if a hair was
never out of place. Well, if this is a cover-up of some sort, it has gone too
far. Whatever the outcome, the public will not forgive or forget.
Mrs. Clinton,
who I once hoped to see elected, has spent the summer cozying the elites in very
rarified airs and walking away with sacks of cash for it, while the very few
public events she has recently and briefly attended, it is apparent that she is
barely able to function.
What I saw on film today from many different angles has
me horrified and disturbed. That was not walking pneumonia. She should have been
to the hospital, not an hour of rest at home, after that episode. Something it
not right about this, and there will be a reckoning if the truth is not
forthcoming. This is a candidate for the presidency of the United States of
America, not a run of the mill celebrity entitled to their wall of privacy.
Lynn in DC um, DC
I think it is a mistake for Hillary and her
campaign to try to blow this pneumonia diagnosis as no big thing. Pneumonia can
be spread via breathing and coughing. Hillary has had at least two coughing
fits, she has been in crowds, she hugged a little girl today and spent an hour
or so in Chelsea's apartment (presumably Chelsea's infant was at home). Either
someone is being very irresponsible or we are hearing lies again.
It is
great that Hillary is on antibiotics and has been rehydrated but perhaps she
should stay home for the sake of her own health and let Tim Kaine do the heavy
lifting.
So many commenters are worried what Trump will say but the video of Hillary
buckling and being hauled into the van head- first is as bad as it gets, no one
has to say anything.
TheZeitgeist Santa Monica, CA
Alright. Let's buy the party line
from Hillary's people about the pneumonia shtick, which was generated after
multi-hours of secrecy into a PR disaster while holding her own press people -
many sympathetic to her - in the dark.
But at best it makes the unspoken party line that as her people
were calling talk of Hillary health issues last week a 'conspiracy' she
was being diagnosed with respiratory infections a the same time,
unannounced and under the table.
The woman either has the worst PR flacks or worst intrinsic PR instinct of
any public figure I've ever seen. I just can't figure out who's the more hapless
in the Big Hillary operation.
Jonathan Colorado
So she knew she had pneumonia, then hugged
that little girl? After going to her daughter's apartment, who has very young
children? That someone would have pneumonia is perfectly reasonable. That it's being
spun like this is not.
John Murray Midland Park, NJ
Unfortunately, it looks like
Secretary Clinton is propped up against a stanchion, semi-conscious, and then
proceeds to collapse as she is helped to the vehicle and lifted inside.
Oakwood New York
Nonsense! First it was total denial. Then it was
'overheating' (on a pleasant NYC day.) And then when a pedestrian's video came
out on Twitter, its 'a little pneumonia'. Nonsense. I've had pneumonia, your
lungs get filled with fluid and you can barely breathe. And by the way, if she
did have pneumonia, it was massively irresponsible of her to be in a crowd or to
hug that little girl. No more lies. We have a right to know
Michael S is a trusted commenter Wappingers Falls, NY
Once again
team Hillary covered up the facts - until a viral video ruined the cover story -
and the press lapped up the spin unquestioningly (even lying about the
temperature at the event). Information about the health of the candidates is
extremely important to the public but the press wont break ranks and act like
real journalists. Makes one wonder about Hillary's one month absence from the
campaign trial that the Times reported was unprecedented but was to raise money
from fat cats.
will w CT
This is getting stranger and stranger by the day.
Strange times call for strange outcomes: Get Sanders back on the wagon and trump
the Trumpster as we all well know only he can.
Said Ordaz Manhattan
Dear apologists of the NYT, stop denying it,
she's really really sick, and you know it. Do us all a favor, start doing your
job and investigate the true extent of her illness, and actual state of health.
JEFF S is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, NY 10 hours ago
Reporters were with
her all day Friday and she had that national security briefing, a press
conference, did an interview with CNN which aired today, did the fund raiser and
opened up about half of the Trump supporters. When was there time for her to be
examined for pneumonia? And wouldn't it be necessary to have a chest x-ray in a
hospital to rule out something else. And then she attended today's memorial at
Ground Zero? Something is very fishy.
I don't think there's any question she will have a stroke sooner or later
although obviously it could be tomorrow, it could be next year, it could be a
decade from now. Who knows? It seems to me if I were her doctor, I would highly
recommend against running for President. My theory, and the word is theory, is
she knows she's quite ill but wants to cement her legacy as the first female
President of the United States no matter how short lived it might be.
Of course, the Hillary crowd here who have been in denial about her health
all along will remain in denial. If she is indeed ill, for the sake of the
country, she should just give it up and still give the democrats time to put up
somebody less contenteous than she is.
S. Austin Los Angeles
The conspiracy of the Clinton campaign and
the mainstream media, e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post to cover
up news about Hillary's health is what all Americans should worry about. When
she had her coughing fit last week, why did she blame it on allergies and keep
the real reason quiet when she knew on FRIDAY she has pneumonia? Even after we
saw the video of her semi-collapsing today, the "real" story was not told.
It
wasn't until the story got so big that the campaign, the New York Times, and the
Washington Post could no longer ignore it that we learned about a diagnosis.
Her health is a real concern and not the conspiracy theory all the Liberal
elites want to apply to anyone who questions her health.
dlglobal N.J. 11 hours ago
I jogged today in NJ, 40 minutes from NYC, on a
beautiful "cool" day unlike the hot days before. Was NYC really hot as described
that caused her to become dehydrated/overcome by heat? Something ain't kosher
here...
rich williams long island ny 8 hours ago
Mrs. Clinton lost consciousness,
called a syncope episode. She should have been brought to a hospital by
ambulance. She needed to have full blood work, an EKG, a chest X-ray, a CT of
the head, a neuro and cardiac consult. She needs to be on a cardiac monitor for
24 hours. Especially since she is on Coumadin a powerful blood thinner for
previous blood clots which has significant complications.
One more attempt to
deceive the public for political purposes. I do not believe the pneumonia story.
And why didn't they tell us about it in Friday when the diagnosis was made? Her
physician should be careful, she should be deposed. Mrs. Clinton put herself out
there and we have a right to know her health problems now that she collapsed in
public at a routine low stress event. I am a licensed practicing Emergency
Medicine physician for 35 years, Board Certified.
in disbelief Manhattan 8 hours ago
Clinton didn't lose her balance, as the
NYT put it, she collapsed and had to be carried to her car. My God, is the NYT,
in its mission to relentlessly push Clinton's candidacy, now refusing to report
simple facts? Have we reached a new low in journalism now? Clinton collapsed! I
hope Mrs. Clinton the best in regards to her own health, but for the NYT to
purposely refuse to report what everyone saw is outrageously dishonest.
Z USA 10 hours ago
As a medical resident, I am perplexed by the pneumonia
diagnosis. Pneumonia is diagnosed with a chest x-ray. Did she undergo a chest
x-ray on Friday? Also, pneumonia can be quite a serious illness - it doesn't
seem wise for her campaign to allow her to interact with young children
(apparently she hugged a child?) given the diagnosis. I don't want to say it but
as Trump likes to say, "something is going on here." I don't want to stoke the
conspiracy theorists, but I think it's time we get some more information about
her health...
Michel Santa Barbara 11 hours ago
All of a sudden NYT is no longer able to
bury the story about her fainting and stumbling as it has done so far today,
much to the shame of people who call themselves journalists and are in fact
nothing more than shameful surrogates for a hugely failing candidates
Sue Cleveland
If she was told she had pneumonia on Friday, why
did they not release that information then?
Dr.J Atlanta
I have had pneumonia myself. She will get better.
With all the plane flights and her grueling schedule, I am not surprised she got
sick. That said, even if she were gravely ill, why would that make Trump a more
appealing candidate? She has chosen a vice presidential candidate who reflects
her values and the values of our country. I fully expect Secretary Clinton to be
fine, but if heaven forbid she is not, Tim Kaine is a far better choice than
Donald Trump or Mike Pence.
Steve New York 5 hours ago
I know, it's the fault of the Sander's supporters
that her health is now an issue. It's always the fault of the Sander's
supporters for any of the problems that Clinton has. The DNC is not at all at
fault for saddling Democrats with a candidate whom few trust and now has the
additional question of health. Thanks a lot DNC.
Sarah Minneapolis 10 hours ago
The commenter who is a medical doctor is
right: The current state of medicine requires an x-ray to be diagnosed with
pneumonia. One safe bet is that Chelsea doesn't have an x-ray machine in her
swank NYC apartment.
I don't know what's more pathetic: The NYT "news" coverage of Clinton's
health issues or the fact that all the NYT Picks comments are pro-Hillary.
The storied NYT has become a caricature of a liberal rag. MSM has completely
failed to do its job, as far as Clinton is concerned. Doesn't any journalist
there have any semblance of a professional conscience left?
Jon Dama Charleston, SC 10 hours ago
Gee - so Giuliani was right after all.
He's been commenting that Hillary doesn't look good for the past weeks - and
gathering much savage criticism from the liberal press for saying so. No wonder
he was a great mayor - he can spot a problem from a New York mile. Now let's
learn if this is just a bout of pneumonia; or something worse - perhaps related
to that fall. Hmm - don't count on the truth from her headquarters - we'll have
to wait and see.
Gagg Door County, WI 10 hours ago
So, the focus group came back with
pneumonia, eh? I can't think of any reason they'd lie about this. Btw, the
weather service reported late morning Manhattan temp of 77F and humidity of 42%
The media have led us to believe that the heat index was nearing 9.47 Trillion
F...But they've never misled me before...sarc/off
Here There 10 hours ago Today was the nicest weather in weeks, the humidity
was about 35 percent, and at 9 am the sunlight isn't a major issue.
In other words, not buying.
Chicklet is a trusted commenter Douglaston, NY 5 hours ago
Pneumonia
diagnosed on Friday, really? A dozen reporters follow Mrs. Clinton all day, did
they visit the Mt. Kisco Medical Group? This isn't a condition you can diagnose
over the phone, and someone as important as a Presidential candidate ought to
have a proper diagnosis which would include x-rays and blood tests.
Hopefully it's a simple bacterial pneumonia that readily responds to
antibiotics. I hope her physician picked a modern medication, more modern than
her obsolete thyroid medicine and blood thinners. One would think she could get
the best care in the world instantly- this doesn't seem right...
Steve Dimick Las Vegas
Many of the comments are support Mrs.
Clinton and claim a little pneumonia is not a problem. It may not be. The big
issue here is TRUST. Can we believe what she or her camp says about her health
issues? Anybody her takes her word on face value is a fool. She has lied to us
so many times.
Peter Albany.
NY I don't believe the campaign explanation. I
think it is a fib. My sense is that Mrs. Clinton has had underlying health
issues which have and will continue to be aggravated by the rigors of a
Presidential campaign. To me, an undecided voter, she does not seem healthy and
age has caught up with her in startling fashion.
TB NY 6 hours ago
The video of Mrs. Clinton as she "loses balance" at an
event where a very large number of professional "reporters" were in attendance,
including some accompanied by people with expensive video cameras on their
shoulders, was attributed to "Twitter user Zdenek Gazda".
What a stunning indictment of the media, particularly those who were assigned
to cover the Democratic nominee for President; the one who was diagnosed with
pneumonia two days ago. But they didn't know that, to be fair, otherwise they
might have actually kept an eye on her at the ceremony.
It took one guy with a smartphone to change the whole dynamic of the story.
Not a journalist, it should be noted. Just some guy with a smartphone, and some
curiosity.
Too bad he wasn't around on Friday. We might have learned about the pneumonia
diagnosis.
Disgraceful.
seniordem Arizona
Pneumonia can be quite a surprising event. I
am a bit older than Hillary and last year, I suddenly without any warning, found
my self on the floor and unable to get up by myself. The medical technicians
told us that it would be OK for my spouse to drive me to the hospital where it
came as much as a surprise as my fall to find out that I had Pneumonia. The next
day I came home and was on my feet a day later. Antibiotics certainly are a
wonder of our time. To sum up my experience In the jargon of New York "Who
knew"? We wish Hillary well and look for her to be able to resume her campaign
soon.
Seb Williams Orlando, FL
It says so much about the Clintons that
even something like this is difficult to trust. Pneumonia -- fine. Nobody's
going to begrudge her that, it happens. Why the compulsive secrecy, obfuscation,
press-dodging? At her age, why on earth was she not sent for x-rays?
I'm really baffled by the sycophancy in these comments. Here's a woman who
employs a personal physician and aspires to be President of the United States
being utterly reckless with *her own health*. That is not "strength", that's
scary.
Mike B Tampa, FL 10 hours ago
Did any of the commenters here actually see the
video...?!? She passed out while standing up..! Is our president, the president
of the United States going to need babysitting so she doesn't pass out on here
feet, fall and hit her head again? It's like the Seven Plagues with you
people... What in the name of humanity is it going to take to make you
understand that she is not well.... She is in no way capable to serve, no
possible way!
Frank E AK 11 hours ago
Ehhh, she fainted and was then carried the last
couple of feet inside the van by 2 or 3 people; she also visibly loses one of
her shoes in the process. How is she "fine" again?
Pol Pont California 7 hours ago
Hillary is surrounded by either a bunch of
liars or incompetents. If she had a pneumonia why not say so last Friday and
take her to ground zero for 30 minutes which was well enough under the
circumstances and not let her stand there until she fainted knowing that she was
unwell. We all have a colds and other passing illnesses at the worst possible
time. Are they trying to make her really ill?
Cryptapocalypse USA 7 hours ago
NYT- this development is exactly why all
these pieces in the Times poo-pooing health concerns were ill-advised and even
suggested complicity on the Time's part to minimize what are obviously multiple
strange behaviors by Mrs. Clinton. Even a person without medical training can
recognize that she has some problems, whatever they may be. I am sick of the
attempts by the Times and other mainstream publications to convince the public
that a common sense observation that Mrs. Clinton has frail health is wrong. The
fact that you also question Mr. Trumps health does not lessen the sting of
attempts to minimize concerns about Mrs. Clinton. What will you do if she has an
epileptic fit during the debates? You may be eating more and more proverbial
crow as time goes on. Please start doing your job as journalists and not as
apologists for either candidate.
Hey Joe Somewhere In The US 7 hours ago
The Clintons lie and hold back on the
most ridiculous things. Pneumonia is treatable, and carries no shame. But the
poor handling of this makes ya wonder if it isn't something worse. They've brought this on themselves. I hope she is well. And if she isn't,
stop everything and deal with it. And if she does get well, don't do stupid
things like this, or do them off camera.
Baron95 Westport, CT 9 hours ago
Anyone living in the NYC area knows that
this morning 8-9AM during the ceremony, the weather was neither hot, nor humid.
Instead it was a perfect 70s with low humidity (35%).
Why does the NYT insist on calling it "hot and humid"? Is it to fit the
Clinton narrative?
Also there were hundreds of reports throughout the day of Mrs. Clinton near
fainted, being carried out is a hurry.
Yet, the NYT only reports on it after it gets the proper "narrative" from the
official Clinton campaign release.
Is that what journalism is supposed to be?
Joe Schuler Norwalk, CT 10 hours ago
Stonewalling, followed by suspect cover
stories, has been a constantly recurring theme during Mrs. Clinton's campaign.
Large media sources, including my once-trusted NY Times, have been shockingly
complicit in abetting these attempts at deceit. What has happened to you guys?
ADCM Many Places 10 hours ago
As a preliminary matter let me say that Trump
is a disaster.
That said, I've grown so weary of the secrecy, minimizing and misdirection
from the Clintons and this campaign. And I don't want to hear any of the
'vast-right-wing-conspiracy' or 'Trump-is-a-whole-lot-worse' tripe! Voters
deserve honesty and respect from candidates and we aren't getting it.
I'm just sick at the choice of a Nixonian-like presidency from Clinton or a
dictatorship from Trumpolini.
Thanks a lot republican and democratic parties!
Shines66 Florida 7 hours ago
Is it time for the DNC to select an alternative
to Clinton? She is not well and will not be able to perform duties of the
presidency. Her health condition is going to get Mr. Trump elected.
Krugman: "Last summer,... when Mr. Trump ... promised not to cut Social Security,... insiders like
William Kristol gleefully declared that he was "willing to lose the primary to win the general."
In reality, however, Republican voters don't at all share the elite's enthusiasm for entitlement cuts...
"
"G.O.P. establishment was also sure that Mr. Trump would pay a heavy price for asserting that we
were misled into Iraq - evidently unaware just how widespread that (correct) belief is among Americans
of all political persuasions."
Trade, Trump, and Downward Class Warfare, by Mark Kleim an: A conversation with my Marron
Institute colleague Paul Romer yesterday crystallized an idea I'd been toying with for some time.
In a nutshell: opponents of taxing the rich have destroyed, on a practical level, the theoretical
basis for believing that free trade benefits everyone.
The Econ-101 case for free trade is straightforward: Trade benefits those who produce exports
and those who consume imports (including producers who use imported goods as inputs). It hurts
the producers of goods which can be made better or more cheaply abroad. But the gains to the winners
exceed the gains to the losers: that is, the winners could make the losers whole and still come
out ahead themselves. Therefore, trade passes the Pareto test.
[Yes, this elides a number of issues, including path-dependency in increasing-returns and learning-by-doing
markets on the pure-economics side and the salting of actual agreements with provisions that create
or protect economic rents on the political-economy side. It also ignores the biggest gainers from
trade: workers in low-wage countries, most notably the Chinese factory workers whose parents were
barefoot peasants.]
So when the modern Republican Party (R.I.P), in the name of "small government" and opposition
to "class warfare," set its face against policies to redistribute the gains from economic growth,
it destroyed the theoretical basis for thinking that a rising tide would lift all the boats, rather
than lifting the yachts and swamping the trawlers. Free trade without redistribution (especially
the corrupt version of "free trade" with corporate rent-seeking written into it) is basically
class warfare waged downwards. ...
"... 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.
Buying iPhone is mistake in itself. but as for neocon propaganda machine do
you thing that Google or Yahoo are better? they are not.
Notable quotes:
"... Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine? I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the way to the right. ..."
"... I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine. ..."
"... I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative. This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it. ..."
"... Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners. ..."
Anyone else notice that their apple iphone has turned into a raging anti-trump propaganda machine?
I'm talking about the news headlines apple pushes to you when you slide your home screen all the
way to the right.
I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.
Piotr Berman | Aug 6, 2016 4:22:11 PM | 6
Sometimes you get something extra with no additional cost. For 700 bucks you should get hourly
updates from the Lord of the Universe, so neocon urgent news are perhaps a step in this direction
:-)
More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully
interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source, and sometimes it is clear how to
undo it, sometimes not.
Browsers should not have such features, but this is what makes them profitable.
Coming in near future: discount versions of cars that are steered by a computer. Every
few minutes the car stops and restarts only after you confirmed with clicks that you have seen
another ad.
alaric | Aug 6, 2016 5:13:45 PM | 14
"More seriously, this is the fault of the browser and evil business model. Some click is cheerfully
interpreted as your request to get bombarded from some source"
I have never actually read the anti trump stories that apple feeds my iphone because i didn't
want to set up a preference for such things. I just see the headlines and they are quite negative.
This is not the phone responding to my preference. It is content that is being deliberately pushed
by Apple to my phone sans any info suggesting that i want it.
Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6, 2016 11:26:13 PM | 30
I didn't pay $700 for my iphone 6 to get a neocon propaganda machine.
alaric | Aug 6, 2016 2:41:59 PM | 3
Paying $700 for a $200 phone says unflattering things about i-Phone owners.
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The
ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in
conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have
heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you
know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major
role in a remarkable variety of crises: the
financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which
the
Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health
and education, resurgent child poverty,
the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of
Donald
Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently
unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same
coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power
can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets
what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as
an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory
of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human
life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations.
It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised
by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency.
It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved
by planning.
Bookmarks is our new weekly email from the books team with our pick of the
latest news, views and reviews, delivered to your inbox every Thursday
Read more
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by
trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of
a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous:
a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich
everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive
and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds.
The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit,
ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may
have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures,
even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because
you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your
credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your
children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault.
In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and
self-defined as losers.
Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
Read more
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About
Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness,
performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain,
in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the
delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified
by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare
state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as
nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government
planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control.
Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely
read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy
an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek
founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism
– the Mont Pelerin Society
– it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments
should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among
American apostles such as
Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward
for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name.
In 1951, Friedman was happy to
describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to
disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement
more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins.
The postwar consensus was almost universal:
John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment
and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe,
top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment,
developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic
crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter
the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change
... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of
sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially
its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration
in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been
promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package
soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services.
Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation,
neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much
of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged
to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes,
"it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have
been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But,
as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations
in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference
leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government
devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so
beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the
pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to
suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest
and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from
the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals
advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were
distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis for the Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in
The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises
to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the
aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman
described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in
New Orleans.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed
internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state
dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press
for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have
voted to restrict sales of
cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy
bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations
have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon
universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime
of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the
losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic
nightmare of central planning has instead created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since
1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for
the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after
60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade
unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water,
trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set
up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens
or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When
you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates
the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other
outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel.
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make
stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone
services and soon became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in
Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent,"
he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort".
As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing
control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly,
are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from
student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer
of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those
who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest
or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are
the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in
Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot
be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course.
Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments
use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations
and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every
organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises
it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts.
Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending.
But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder
democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment
of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement.
Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically
active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly,
they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political
debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive
instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for
example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and
the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared
is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that
arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening
and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine
staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers.
Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We
find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in
the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover
that
Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the
institute that set up the
Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his
thinktanks,
noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation
is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their
money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The
market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity
or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment",
as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive
and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets
to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same
word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us
to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited
their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off
as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors
style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness
of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers
do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network
of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that
even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that
bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced
by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today
only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves
as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading
and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about
The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work,
Capitalism and Freedom.
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project,
at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted
by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action.
It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to
power.
Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports
the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean
theory of property itself
Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire
economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic
theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the
70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008
there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have
produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian
solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems.
It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s
have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our
gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating
consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth
are the motors of environmental destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's
not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed.
For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to
develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system,
tailored to the demands of the 21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month
by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal
and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful
"bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful
puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history
sweetened with $200k speeches.
Notable quotes:
"... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
"... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
"... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
"... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
"... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
"... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
"... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
"... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
"... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
"... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
"... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
"... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
"... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
"... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
"... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
"... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
"... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
"... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
"... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
"... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
"... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
"... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
"... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
"... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
"... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
"... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
"... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
"... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
"... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
"... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
"... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative
corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third
party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!
kittehpavolvski
So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing
hitherto?
waitforme
So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone
strikes?
ForestTrees
Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign
countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never
had happened under a Trump presidency.
'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by
drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US
is not at war with????
What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.
And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers
than all other presidents combined.
Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder
his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old
boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered
by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.
He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every
Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.
Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!
ID7715785
Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us --
even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He
has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He
has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo.
He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and
a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call
it murder.
ninjamia
Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that
he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.
Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.
And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control
over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For
him it is a slogan.
Larry Robinson
Obama's presidency:
1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay
it up.
2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to
hide it)
4. Stagnant income for average family
5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up
despite stagnant income.
6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance
cost up.
7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until
its threat is too big to ignore.
... ...
Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He
is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after
Bush's term was over.
shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson
$500 million worth of arm supply?
hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor
while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused,
chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect
attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less
tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama
lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years
long and beyond into the 2nd term.
BostonCeltics
Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded
people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome
of incompetence.
Mats Almgren
Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing
nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela,
Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted
the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing
Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from
doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest
military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and
hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq
which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been
an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections
and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing
death and destruction thoughout the world.
With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US
president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking
in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.
It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and
Britain.
Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren
Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?
Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is;
has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and
nothing has changed.
NewWorldWatcher
The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid
to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS.
He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.
Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher
Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against
intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared
that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.
trundlesome1
Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of
taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic
policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like
Bill and Hillary?
Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements
for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.
zootsuitbeatnick
"This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is
the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster
as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison
for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who
gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma
industries.
That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
Try to be at least a little reality-based.
hadeze242
the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK
could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never
since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing
Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing)
with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural
nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never
been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered
sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling
inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written
& endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral
phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.
NewWorldWatcher
In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not
who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2
odds. The worse loss in recent history!
Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher
From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know
it ain't over till it's over.
Larry Robinson
Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter
that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.
Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the
term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what
term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for
credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind
it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it
shows WEAKNESS.
Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him
what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader
here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors
to pull the string constantly? Ouch.
It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes
out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.
raffine
The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.
Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine
The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.
PortalooMassacre
Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see
what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.
guy ventner -> synechdoche
"Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly
when taken off a teleprompter?
Ron Shuffler
"Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that
this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:
Here's what your favorite President actually did:
Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around
2,600 innocent civilians.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot
Act.)
Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions
than Bush ever did.
Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing
terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made
it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport
thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and
pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality
here, especially in communities of color,
Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have
closed it down with a phone call).
Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza
- and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the
right-wingers in control of that state.
Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them
cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.
Which of these things make you "so proud?"
BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler
You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care
(Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting
for it.
At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo
prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens
to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Larry Robinson
It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong
against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad -
a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you
are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is
so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also
Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses
no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is
basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.
Lafcadio1944
What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For
me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing
before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the
law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS
INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.
The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.
This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in
a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government
has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to
congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase
catches on.
I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all
over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly
violate the law - not a chance.
babymamaboy
Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive
as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant
groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by
continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in
the world.
It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care
who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the
narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess
that's what passes for US leadership these days.
urgonnatrip
Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic,
completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put
into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions,
created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for
no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation
to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the
trend but somehow I doubt it.
KerryB -> urgonnatrip
You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary
Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role
played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie
Sanders would have you believe ;-).
zolotoy -> KerryB
Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?
AgnosticKen
TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types,
Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
Pathological Liar – Definition
Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive
or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying
despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure
of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating
quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person.
Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs
on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating,
self-trapping quality to it.
Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In
many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being
lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in
a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences.
Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and
are likely to have damaging consequences.
Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia
fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component
with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling,
compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying
is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic
components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type
of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely
to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism.
Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation
are among many causes of pathological lying.
Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying
Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The
lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short
period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or
deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or
success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating
an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem.
Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which
is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems
in more mature ways (Selling 1942).
Pathological Liar – Causes
Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited
to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:
A dysfunctional family;
Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation,
learning disabilities etc.
Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling,
compulsive shopping.
Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline,
Histrionic and more;
Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia
Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a
way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The
pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible
on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues
have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story
if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of
being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something
that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that
is something they wish they were or at least something better than they
fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven
by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating
a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she
is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start
believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past
incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.
About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction.
For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia.
Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production
& lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they
often fail to control verbal output.
Habitual Liar
Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual
liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she
puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is
going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie
or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary
or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about
it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.
Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are
not limited to:
Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
Avoid confrontation or punishment
Cover up lack of knowledge
Cover up embarrassment
To entertain oneself or others
Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
For no reason whatsoever
Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of
lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she
gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent
& obvious.
Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child
& further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the
child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment.
Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling
the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves
less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.
Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying
Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem,
he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without
thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the
lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control
disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping
etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from
past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely
to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse
problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase
in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness,
such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been
clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.
Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar
Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People
abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to
avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting
off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit,
therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.
Signs of Lying
Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.
7 Signs of Lying
Disguised smiling
Lack of head movement
Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with
an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
Reduced rate of speech
Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication
methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the
lie that is being told orally)
This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
"... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
"... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
"... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
"... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths
are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton
by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths
have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary
lies, repeatedly and recklessly.
She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement
as for political gain.
Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v.
set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie
carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality,
enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your
head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."
What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work.
Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim
of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled
me.
In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right
stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump
up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose
her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully
constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough.
No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.
Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she
"landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
"helped bring peace to Ireland"
"negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"
The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources
prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch,
with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim
honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."
It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National
Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and
Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on
Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries,
Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's
NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.
Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government
and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the
clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as
the NAFTA waffler.
Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and
the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's
headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.
Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus
and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining
to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking
about her vote on the war in Iraq.
Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.
In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few
days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the
U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still
burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance
that would kill two birds with one stone.
More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises
Crooked Hillary will never release transcripts, but they might be leaked...
Politic is pro Clinton media, more like a part of her campaign staff, then independent
media. So it's surprising that they can't hide this skeleton in the closet under
the veil of silence. Looks like Hillary now is on hot stove with that. It's not
just lack of judgment and "make money fast" mentality on her part. This is plain
vanilla corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... Surrogates for both Democratic candidates sniped back and forth on the cable shows Friday over whether Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of her paid speeches to financial institutions, as Bernie Sanders again suggested during the previous night's debate that the lack of disclosure bespeaks a lack of judgment. ..."
"... Speaking earlier in the day on CNN, Clinton supporter and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) appeared to break with the campaign line in remarking of the candidate's decision-making behind the release of transcripts, "I think she will. I think she's been clear that she's going to, and yes I would." ..."
"... Clinton has long maintained that she will release the transcripts of her paid speeches when every other candidate in both parties does the same. Asked whether that should be the standard, Gillibrand demurred. ..."
"... "I think everyone makes their own judgment," remarked Gillibrand, who like Finney, suggested tax returns as a better standard by which voters should judge the candidates. ..."
Surrogates for both Democratic candidates sniped back and forth on the cable
shows Friday over whether Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of
her paid speeches to financial institutions, as Bernie Sanders again suggested
during the previous night's debate that the lack of disclosure bespeaks a lack
of judgment.
A senior adviser to Clinton's campaign on Friday decried the Sanders' campaign's
insinuation.
"This is what the Sanders campaign wants, right? The insinuation that there
is something nefarious," Karen Finney said during an interview on MSNBC, remarking
that when Sanders was asked directly about whether the speeches changed Clinton's
policies, he "had no answer."
Finney added, "I wish that on that stage, Sen. Sanders would have looked
Hillary Clinton in the eye and just said directly what he has insinuated time
and time again, that there is, you know, some connection, perhaps because she
got paid for making a speech, that somehow influenced any activity or action
she has ever taken. And that's what's really what's at the heart of this."
Chief pollster and strategist Joel Benenson insisted that Sanders himself
had put the issue to rest by failing to point to a specific instance.
The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, conceded that its candidate could have been
more direct in addressing whether money from Wall Street and other interests
has tainted Clinton's judgment and credibility.
"Well, I suppose he could have," senior adviser Tad Devine told MSNBC's "Andrea
Mitchell Reports." "There's a lot of issues he hasn't really gone nearly as
hard as he could."
In particular, Devine pointed to Clinton's 2001 vote as a senator for
the Bankruptcy Reform Act as one possible instance, after she opposed it as
first lady.
Clinton has explained the vote as one she changed at the insistence of then-Sen.
Joe Biden. When Mitchell made that point, Devine mused, "She also received enormous
contributions from the financial industry, too."
"Our argument is not that Hillary Clinton is corrupt," Devine said. "OK,
and I know everybody's looking for that argument. Bernie's argument is that
the system is corrupt, and if you're going to participate in it, you're not
going to be able to change things."
Finney, as other members of Clinton campaign have done, rejected the notion
that Clinton's paid speech transcripts are important to undecided voters.
"Well again, Sen. Sanders is trying to use this to make an allegation to
which he has absolutely no response when asked where is the proof. So I think
a lot of voters also find that very offensive," Finney said. "And moreover,
I have to tell you that if you are trying to figure out how to send your kid
to college, if you are trying to figure out how to take care of a sick parent
or wanting your child's schools to be improved, this is not something you care
about."
"I mean, I understand, I think we understand the sort of media fascination
with this," Finney said. "But I'm just telling you, I mean, I have been out
there on the road talking to voters. This never comes up."
Clinton's surrogates, meanwhile, continued to press Sanders to release his
tax returns. Sanders himself said he would release the 2014 returns at some
point later Friday.
Speaking earlier in the day on CNN, Clinton supporter and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
(D-N.Y.) appeared to break with the campaign line in remarking of the candidate's
decision-making behind the release of transcripts, "I think she will. I think
she's been clear that she's going to, and yes I would."
Clinton has long maintained that she will release the transcripts of her
paid speeches when every other candidate in both parties does the same. Asked
whether that should be the standard, Gillibrand demurred.
"I think everyone makes their own judgment," remarked Gillibrand, who like
Finney, suggested tax returns as a better standard by which voters should judge
the candidates.
"... Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive," they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time for all of us. ..."
"... These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or psychopathic (conning) patterns. ..."
"... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without concern for victims." ..."
Women, and men, with borderline personality disorder seem not to know how
to stop arguing (link is external).
Often described as "drama queens" or "abusive,"
they too frequently create chaos in situations where others would smoothly deal
with the normal differences and disappointments that arise from time to time
for all of us.
... ... ...
There may well be some individuals with BPD who are genuinely manipulative
or sadistic.
These habits now would suggest to me comorbid diagnoses, that is, a combination
of borderline personality emotional hyper-reactivity with narcissistic and/or
psychopathic (conning) patterns.
In the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (cited in Bowers,
2002) ... manipulation is defined as deception used for personal gain, without
concern for victims."
"... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
"... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the
dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is
lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse
really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams
of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging
far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really,
really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live
in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.
If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the
pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising
inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated
like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly
unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are
no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.
Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're
immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian
revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this
kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers.
And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw
a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants
to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely
crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow
going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's
not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and
then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people
are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then
there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and
fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising
as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when,
and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
***
The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary
and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies
in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so
that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the
ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks,
too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly
get even richer.
The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that
all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they
were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he
raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford
his Model Ts.
What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've
got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my
customer base. And yours too.
It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world
of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for
office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in
an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by
advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's
the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become
economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle
class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception
that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the
much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real
people who are dependent on one another.
Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more
money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not
rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle
class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle
class creates us rich people, not the other way around.
On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an
article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage."
Forbes
labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after
it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union
organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a
$15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle
passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published,
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen,
you ask?
It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth
and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more
money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them
that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers
wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of
likely Seattle voters in a
recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.
The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and
their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the
minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument
reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took
Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must
go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John
Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment
higher, you get less of it. Really?
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich
and our employees poor.
Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation
for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker
pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs
used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no
company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to
China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives
than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers.
These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and
more of them.
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and
our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists
have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years
of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women
had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every
time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all
going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It
hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated,
business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane
departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle,
our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the
federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers,
look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of
job growth by small businesses
are
San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage?
San Francisco and Seattle. The
fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky
untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing
our city to kick your city's ass.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an
hour, which is
now
the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you
think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That
person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway,
and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants.
Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.
Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there
many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please,
please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will
skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious
thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer,
it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's
bad for the economy.
I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay
workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most
of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the
way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set
bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close
to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less
if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would
not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely
will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective
if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system,
with its speed limits and stop signs.
Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees
in the United States and more than
$25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest
group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of
its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all
out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid
and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn
more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer
to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy
that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not
just ask politely.
We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation
of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators.
It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power
a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but
I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over
the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a
year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants
I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess
I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money
away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.
So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people
like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it:
If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy
standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and
Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling
their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers
can afford.
So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people,
one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as
liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the
size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal
government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially,
not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight
years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful
thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic
principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting
$15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance.
They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle
class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need
as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales
taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.
This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right.
Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to
this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum
recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans
in Congress.
***
One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't
going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On
both sides.
But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have
seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over
the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places
like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security
began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would
have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead
the way.
Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't
seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the
Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but
failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would
promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats
are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because
we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype
of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats
say fairness-and lose every time.
But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet
doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already
changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You
think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters
disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get
people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we
had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate
in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.
It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.
Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism
itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when
well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity
in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration
and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or
the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter.
That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people
like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the
minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists
use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake
in that than zillionaires like us.
The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over
the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always
told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good
for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down
economics.
What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at
the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?
My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows.
They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another
pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as
lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in
Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There
but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances,
are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget
that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made
us, rather than the other way around.
Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.
"... 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.
vice presidential pick is a proxy for what we can expect from her administration.
Now we know the result.
Notable quotes:
"... "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! ..."
"... Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband. ..."
"... The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is. ..."
"... That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate. ..."
"... Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on. ..."
"... The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian! ..."
"... And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ..."
"... I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. ..."
"For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment
around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy
for what we can expect from her administration".
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has
this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that
will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told
the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine,
or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.
Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party,
progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the
Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement through Congress.
"There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed
to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that
we are seeing.
"If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that –
combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will
depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.
... ... ...
"For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment
around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy
for what we can expect from her administration".
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has
this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that
will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told
the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine,
or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.
Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party,
progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the
Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement through Congress.
"There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed
to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that
we are seeing.
"If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that –
combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will
depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.
Rachman Cantrell
Trying to change the minds of Hillary fans is not productive at this
point in time. None of our votes matter until after the convention. Only
the super delegates can decide what happens with the Democratic nominee!
We need to put our efforts into changing their minds! The following is a
letter I sent to my state super delegates. Please use the following link
to write to your own delegates and feel free to copy or modify what I wrote.
"The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival
or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both
unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should
not be forced to choose between them! Polls show that most Bernie
supporters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and I am
one of them! Hillary may survive her legal woes past the primary but
Trump will use them to win if she is the candidate. To avoid that probability
please vote for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee for president!
Super delegates have a serious decision to make. Vote for Hillary with
the likelihood of a Trump presidency and a drastically shrinking party
or vote for Bernie and open the doors to millions of new Democrats with
a revitalized and growing party! I hope you make the right decision!
Thank you"
Use the link below to send to all super delegates. Copy my message, modify
or write your own. It only takes about fifteen minutes to send to all delegates
state by state but leave your zip code blank in the form. This may be our
last chance to get Bernie in the White House! http://www.lobbydelegates.com/engage.php
Eileen Kerrigan -> aguy777
Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence,
other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes
things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators,
peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange
for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and
leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when
they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband.
As for continuing in Obama's footsteps, that would mean more war, more
fracking, passing the TPP, more pollution, more corruption, more income
inequality, more offshore tax havens ... yeah, that sounds like a GREAT
plan!!
Vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Bernie should have endorsed
her, but took the safe route (for him to remain in the thick of the Dem
party).
toosinbeymen
The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which
of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing
hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is.
DrRoss555
I just watched Mrs. Clinton speak in Ohio. She is such a nasty, pandering
fear monger....I guess the other side is too, but this woman takes it to
unprecedented levels.
Nasty...no wonder black people are on the hunt for cops....just listen
to this woman
dougtheavenger -> DrRoss555
THE WAGES OF MOST BLACK AMERICANS ARE KEPT ARTIFICIALLY LOW BY POLICIES
ENDORSED BY HILLARY.
The influx of cheap, immigrant labor keeps wages low, but this is NOT
the result of free market forces. Cheap immigrant labor is subsidized by
the government. Without government subsidy 50% of immigrants would not come
and 100% of those earning less than $15/hour would not come. Lacking certain
advantages that natives have, immigrants cannot live on the wages half of
them earn. Only governmenT subsidy of low wages EITC, etc. make immigration
(at the cost of $7,000 for a family of 4) a rational choice for them.
SagiGirl -> DrRoss555
Jill Stein is such a contrast to Hillary. She's calm and cool, well spoken,
and has human-based values along with a mighty strength and intellect. I
can't wait to vote for her.
mjclarity
Clinton is the Blair of the Democratic party, a Republican/Tory in progressive
clothing. So emulating the failed politics of laying opposition cuckoos
in the progressive nest seems like a bad tactic to me.
dougtheavenger -> mjclarity
Hillary is mainly a crook. Yes, she supports TPP and NAFTA and other
policies that keep wages artificially low, but she does it for money, not
ideology.
ID704291
When Ann O'Leary says, "We are not going to get there unless we elect
Hillary Clinton to be president," she sounds pretty tone deaf. Kossacks
have banned all discussion of concerns about Clinton on their blog, basically
telling the left to get lost.
Democracy for America is toothless and leaderless, and its unattended
locals tend to go off the rails attracting neo Nazis and other extremists.
DNC is pushing education as they have since the 1980s, but that really only
means that if you cannot afford it, or aren't among the highest in your
class, you don't matter, and it's your fault you are doing better.
That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they
gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the
left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats
claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to
shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat
argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate.
Otterboxman Yep
Hillary will never get my vote. I've voted democrat in the past but will
not vote democrat this year. I can barely stand it when Trump opens his
mouth, but it is even worse when Hillary does. The current POTUS has taken
us so far off course that Hillary's plan will never bring us back on course.
It is about jobs, our productivity, and our pursuit of happiness. The two
parties don't get it. They want to make it about race, gender, abortion,
guns, citizenship...They should make it about the good things that the USA
had going for it and quit picking out which group got trampled to get there.
We were great but now we just sit across from each other pointing fingers
and calling names.
Stephen Mitchell 11h ago
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
DurbanPoisonWillBurn JimJayuu
Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's
& ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist
wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will
NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem
in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq
War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on.
Daniel Staggers
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who
has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about
... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base,"
All that would mean is she knows that's all she'd have to do to get the
stupid people to vote for her. You know, like the person who wrote this
article? Never mind committing treason hundreds of times over, just get
Warren, right?
clicker2 -> Daniel Staggers
The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They
want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster
as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are
starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal,
and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity
at the Guardian!
DurbanPoisonWillBurn -> Daniel Staggers
Pocahontas is a sellout just like Bernie. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud.
She claims progressive but lives like a neo-liberal war hawk. Just the sight
of Warren disgusts progressives the world over. And for the record,
Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest
in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Steve Connor
Hillary (and Bernie) shows just how low the Democrat party has become
in terms of true leadership and ideas for making America great again. They
have none. Bernie's popularity was with young voters looking for a free
ride and typical idealistic view of the world, Hillary was the embodiment
of corruption in politics and she rose to power on that, not what she did
for her adopted State of NY, or the country. Her ideas (not her's) are of
failed Democrat policy and ideas over the past 10 years and especially the
last 25.
Ezajur -> Steve Connor
Bernie was not about a free ride. He was about reprioritisation. His
ideas to make America great again are excellent.
eastbayradical
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's
huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average
person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking
globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the
cap on taxes to do so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US
has waged in the past 25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the
starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention
them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and
2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international
pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its
expense in the past 25 years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the
objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the
'90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her
husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec.
of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to
60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor
class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever
release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters,
who aren't.
Missy Saugus
I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by
committing election fraud against his supporters. Why is this being
ignored and shoved under the rug? The nomination rightfully belongs to Sanders.
It is the ultimate insult to expect people to vote for the ones who stole
this from Sanders. The ones who, now that the precedent has been set, will
be sure that the next Bernie Sanders has no chance. The Dems are dirty.
They are criminal. And apparently untouchable.
Bernie should have walked. #FreeBernie
ID550456
If Clinton picks a Clintonite neoliberal VP: pro TPP, pro GMO, pro banker,
pro oil, etc. I think it's a safe bet that most of Sanders' supporters will
either sit out the election or vote Green Party, however revolting the prospect
of Trump/Pence may be. I know I will.
Fear4Freedom
"A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Bernie Sanders'
supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers
in order to win the White House." Hillary has a way with "everyday Americans",
it's just not a good way...no one wants to vote for someone they think is
"UNTRUSTWORTHY".
eastbayradical
The new talking point being put forward by Clinton's hapless supporters
is that she'll push to overturn Citizens United.
They know this because she said so in passing at a $20,000 a plate soiree
she had recently in Dollarsville County, USA.
Ezajur -> Rich Fairbanks
Her hapless supporters won primaries with media, establishment, DNC and
big money entirely for her and against Bernie. And he went from 3 to 46%
in 12 months. Now that's worth bragging about.
I suppose getting 54% for such a lousy candidate as Hillary is something
to brag about.
Ezajur -> markdman
I'm a Bernie supporter.
Killary. Drillary. Billary. Shillary.
Its all good.
I also hate Trump.
eastbayradical -> Joe Smith
"The Clinton platform is pretty good for any progressive..."
Clinton has shown a willingness to say whatever she feels needs to be
said to further her political career. She speaks in different dialects depending
the audience. She's a principle combatant against racism when speaking to
African-American audience. She's an ardent feminist when in front of liberal
women's groups. She's not one to spare a laudatory word for corporate America
and Wall Street when speaking before bankers.
What we can and should go on is her record going back to her time as
First Lady during the presidency of Bill Clinton (whom she never differed
with on policy and whom she says will manage the economy if elected).
Here are policies, initiatives, and actions that Hillary Clinton has
supported over the years:
--Deregulation of the investment banks (and against reinstatement of
Glass-Steagall)
--The destruction of welfare (which has caused the numbers living in extreme
poverty to double since its passage)
--NAFTA
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The private prison industry
--Patriot Acts 1 and 2
--The Iraq War
--The bombing of Libya
--Military intervention in Syria
--The Saudi dictatorship
--Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg against Gaza
--The right-wing coup in Honduras
--Investor-friendly repression and cronyism in Haiti
--A 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it)
--The fight against free public university tuition
--The fight against single-payer health care
--Acceptance of tens of millions of dollars of corporate money
--Credit-card industry favored bankruptcy laws
--The bail-out of Wall Street
Her record is "pretty good for any progressive" whose head is lodged
in their ass.
eastbayradical
The bankers' buddy and spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank
just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."
You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's
being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering
Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.
With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless
to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no--he has become a direct
impediment to it.
Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever
their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the
national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another
notch decisively to the right.
We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive
stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.
In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are
indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political
initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!
Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight
kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality
or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for
the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll
save us from the Republicans.
It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten
us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported
and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton
and Barack Obama:
--Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
--The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in
the 15 years after its passage)
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Patriots Acts 1 and 2
--Massive expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts
to raise it
--Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
--A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and
inflamed anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel
not weakened or obliterated it
--Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
--The bail-out of Wall Street
ClearItUp
Her reflexive warmongering attitude is what majority of progressives
have problems with. There is absolutely nothing in this article about it.
Elizabeth Warren won't solve Hillary's problem, but a foreign policy, total
opposite of her last speech, that was reviewed by neocon talking heads,
as a sober analysis, is what is wrong. What people want to hear is: "We
made a mistake in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We will do our best and resolve
them without machinations, and never engage in regime change." No ifs and
buts, we will defend out friends and allies, nonsense she constantly says,
no annihilating threat to any country, for any reason. Bring someone like
Phyllis Bennis on board as an adviser. Maybe she can teach Hillary a few
things. Only, then if she clearly shows she has changed course, she may
start getting a little ahead.
"... If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads. ..."
"... The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses. ..."
"... For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice ..."
Wake up, establishment centrists: Donald Trump is coming!
After the Vietnam War and Watergate and the spying scandals uncovered by
the Church Committee and the Nixon Administration cronies who nearly firebombed
the Brookings Institution, Americans were briefly inclined to rein in executive
power-a rebuke to Richard Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, that
means it's not illegal." Powerful committees were created to oversee misconduct-prone
spy agencies. The War Powers Resolution revived a legislative check on warmaking.
"In 34 years," Vice President Dick Cheney would lament to ABC News in a January
2002 interview, "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability
of the president of the United States to do his job. I feel an obligation...
to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."
The Bush Administration aggressively moved to expand executive power, drawing
on the dubious legal maneuvering of David Addington, John Yoo, and their enablers.
Starting in 2005, the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, would repeatedly
insist that Bush's assertions of executive power violated the Constitution.
Nonetheless, Obama inherited a newly powerful executive branch, just as Cheney
had hoped. And rather than dismantle it, Obama spent two terms lending the imprimatur
of centrist, establishment bipartisanship to Cheney's vision.
Now, Donald Trump is coming.
Civil libertarians have long warned the partisans who trusted Bush and Obama,
and the establishment centrists who couldn't imagine anyone in the White House
besides an Al Gore or John Kerry or John McCain or Mitt Romney, that they were
underestimating both the seriousness of civil liberties abuses under Bush and
Obama and the likelihood of even less responsible leaders wreaking havoc in
the White House.
Three years ago, in "
All the Infrastructure a Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy of Bush and Obama ,"
I warned that "more and more, we're counting on having angels in office and
making ourselves vulnerable to devils," and that come January, 2017, an unknown
person would enter the Oval Office and inherit all of these precedents:
The president can order American citizens killed, in secret, without
any judicial or legislative review, by declaring them terrorists posing
an imminent threat.
The president can detain prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial.
The president can start a torture program with impunity.
The president can conduct warrantless surveillance on tens of millions
of Americans and tap a database that allows metadata archived in 2007 to
be accessed in 2017.
The federal government can
collect and store DNA swabs of people who have been arrested even if
they are released and never convicted of any crime.
Now, Donald Trump is coming. And many establishment centrists are professing
alarm. There is nothing more establishment than Robert Kagan, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post. He
begins by observing that if Trump wins, his coalition will include tens of millions
of Americans.
"Imagine the power he would wield then," Kagan
wrote . "In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following,
he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command:
the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who
would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down
before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with
infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious,
more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life?
Does vast power un-corrupt?"
Kagan's article seemed well-received and widely shared among establishment
centrists.
Yet neither he nor most others who share his fears have yet acknowledged
their bygone failures of imagination, or granted that civil libertarians were
right: The establishment has permitted the American presidency to get dangerously
powerful.
While writing or sharing articles that compare Trump to Hitler, Mussolini,
and Franco, few if any have called on Obama or Congress to act now "
to tyrant-proof the White House ." However much they fear Trump, however
rhetorically maximalist they are in warning against his elevation, even the
prospect of him controlling the entire apparatus of the national security state
is not enough to cause them to rethink their reckless embrace of what Gene Healy
calls "
The Cult of the Presidency ," a centrist religion that persisted across
the Bush administration's torture chambers and the Obama administration's unlawful
War in Libya.
With a reality-TV bully is on the doorstep of the White House, still they
hesitate to urge reform to a branch of government they've long regarded as more
than co-equal.
They needn't wait for the Nixon-era abuses to replay themselves as farce
or worse to change course. Their inaction is irresponsible. Just as the conservative
movement is duty bound to grapple with its role in a populist demagogue seizing
control of the Republican Party, establishment centrists ought to grapple with
the implicit blessing they've given to the extraordinary powers Trump would
inherit, and that even the less-risky choice, Hillary Clinton, would likely
abuse.
If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The
establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will
violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael
Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American
students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads.
The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to
admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served
knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance
of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military
remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against
serious abuses.
For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically
reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like
the one on The Apprentice , where he'll decide not which B-list celebrity
to fire, but which humans to kill. Establishment centrists could work to strip
the presidency of that power.
"... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
"... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
"... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
"... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
"... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
"... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
"... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
"... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
"... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other.
Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving
book. It's a good political beach read.
It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came
from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination,
with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina
primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for
someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie
about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal
Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton
he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged
on it.
There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations.
The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the
Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but
meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the
Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded
from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president
since 2009.
I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their
version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who
are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends
seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't
jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations,
there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people
party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it
stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.
The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't
much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about
Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas
days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either
flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing.
It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through,
but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable
how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to
agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the
anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her
face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.
The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have
been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious;
Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive,
i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing
his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded.
It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he
dies.
The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get
any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction.
Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about
his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much
beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with
the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance
for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk
about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his
administration "rudderless".
He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him
but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between
the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by
reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back
a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie
Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much.
She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider
who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.
You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much
else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's
Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into
the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine,
but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting
Hillary not long afterwards.
Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as
powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late
thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get
her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.
It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their
own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have
raised a billion dollars for the run.
There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively;
you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy
with a bad heart condition?
His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor
pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South,
the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only
shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and
single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying
Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd
think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there
don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead
separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence,
and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House
should she be elected.
Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White
House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation
on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively
estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified,
will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women;
she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways.
Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She
and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting
funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have
to do much work.
Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already
sees him losing his clout and political capital.
The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies
- a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons,
think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may
not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession
than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's
reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and
she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and
confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill
dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary,
for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that
it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her
see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and
small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and
acquiesce.
Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front
of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election:
what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander
in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a
couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest
political mind of his time.
PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider
quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies,
nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any
specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of
Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if
the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies."
Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so
that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still
think they planted a lot of this.
The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about
Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly
what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics,
as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on
any number of fronts.
"... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
"... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful
couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The
Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another
blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.
Among the
revelations of Mr Klein":
The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated
that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated
2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons
accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious
husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but
is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She
is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s
closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS
and his power spouse.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they
seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded
by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with
them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the
Kennedy family.
Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack
and covered up to protect their butts.
Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work
well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic
Party.
Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very
revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.
All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation
should read this book and have their eyes opened.
Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!
"... Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter. ..."
"... Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now. ..."
"... He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections ..."
"... Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin. ..."
"... BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day. ..."
"... Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh. ..."
"... The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons. ..."
"... Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump. ..."
Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security,
while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business
executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on
an assembly line or as a waiter.
Yes, I know this is Dayen's quote and not Yves'.
But I'm disturbed every time I see this argument about "desk work" vs
"manual labor" WRT working longer. Its true of course but fails to recognize
that many who sit behind desks are also being forced out of their jobs (and
yes, this includes "business executives" too) well before 65, have little
chance of being hired for anything else and thus don't really have a choice
to work longer. Unless you're part of the super elite you're not much better
off than the manual laborer when it comes to staying employed past your
mid to late fifties, let alone your mid to late sixties.
I'm extremely lucky (and know it and am grateful) to have what is viewed
as a "desk job" as I approach my golden years. I am able to and plan to
keep working possibly into my early '70s. Why? Well for one thing: because
I can. For another, to save as much as possible just in case. Child of Depression
Era parents, yadda yadda. And if I can pass on something to my nieces and
nephews… well good.
The problem as I see it is not so much that I am able to continue working
into my 70s but that my ability to do so, combined with that sinking feeling
that I really should and need to due to current circumstances, is that I
am preventing someone younger from ascending the ladder. And at this time,
someone would definitely be hired or promoted to take my place.
Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this
stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great.
If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire
sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now.
Can't find the details but I think I recall some startling tid bits about
W.T. Grant advising Reagan's commission on overhauling military retirement
pay (part of which was greatly increasing allowances for food clothing and
housing that were not included in retirement pay calculations). We had the
odd situations of retirees that retired early enough (grandfathered, I think),
that got higher retirement pay (based on 50% of base pay which, for them,
was a far higher percentage of their total pay) than those of us who retired
later, at higher total pay, but a lower percentage of base pay, such that
the earlier retirees cost of living raises outpaced our keeping up with
inflation).
After the deed was done, I thought I heard that only four or five W.T.
Grant employees that had built up substantial seniority that would have
provided healthy retirement pay were able to remain employed until they
reached 65 years of age (and that they were essentially senior executives
at or near the top).
The more common case seemed to be like my friend's father, a master of
many trades, seemingly a most effective employee in any position assigned,
as well as being a well regarded President of the Lions Club and active
in other civic minded organizations, promoted into a management position
at Uniroyal, seemingly to exempt him from union protection. They found his
capabilities "inadequate" at 17.5 years, just when he would have started
accumulating substantial retirement benefits.
He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business
after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me
of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always
persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections
(in my case, the once great Kodak).
The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing
that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say,
"I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later
she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to
any of a hundred reasons.
Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested
in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could
actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and
the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump.
"... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
"... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
"... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
"... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
"... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
"... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
"... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
"... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
"... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
"... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
"... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
"... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the
neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas
votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational
Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal
Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.
The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control,
for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at
the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit,
but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear")
launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will
come in earnest.
The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the
'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were
simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing,
however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not
only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which
it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working
class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice
versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of
the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore
the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further
'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring
not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the
present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing
of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable
only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up
to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet
but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within
which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.
The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above'
by the Transnational and national elites.
This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection
of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO.
In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so
to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to
millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist
ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of
'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical)
nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them
are as follows:
a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting
communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states
that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements
against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;
b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for
one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at
the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization
process;
c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the
past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the
nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war
demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of
the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital,
labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization,
particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result
of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle',
for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"),
hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers
have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western
part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World".Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people
(and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not
of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft"
(that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions,
e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist
"NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the
popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization.
This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia,
which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists
to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying
to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media
etc.) with this patriotic movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party
in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible
with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long
ago!):
"Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate
it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international
finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum
wage".[vi]
In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly
as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's
vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:
"The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it
represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial
policies . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]
As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies,
which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something
copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro
newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent
FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called,
apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of
the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face
of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat)
to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign
policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul
of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would
be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed.
At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable
friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly
rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel
Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing
plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a
host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]
Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence
from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist
forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader
in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites.
Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper
of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization'
of European politics."[xiii]
However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU
in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law
and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by
traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business;
a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to
raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were
in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they
have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the
parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against
24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to
clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation
at all!
The bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic
and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process
has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three
decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite
in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to
grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation
that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy,
which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class
that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization
but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated
into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left
to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist
movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists
themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism,
stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".
Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie
Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions
in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community
is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the
country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and
USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built
in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main
enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which
today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically
well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.
Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the
issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as
the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is
a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of
representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly
represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless
to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties
as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against
the rising movement for national sovereignty.
This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European
voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply
want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of
capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter
has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural
globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment
in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more
clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class.
As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:
Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for
Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education
qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer
dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]
The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with
political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites
in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World
Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist
movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the
neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements
that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" ,
Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the
phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization,
using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the
new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy'
was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that
the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing
the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation
of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft"
who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan
George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and
other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly
interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural
meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which
they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive
is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize
that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic
unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as
well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand
social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but
a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist
"NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case
clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism
and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose
a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated
into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The
only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty,
which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were
historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization,
when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.
However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for
any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible
today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which
is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may
be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case
of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not
only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming
evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even
by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE,
constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which,
instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing
out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist
parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working
class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects
of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into
the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.
National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient
to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through
our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country
which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their
current political affiliations.
In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently
needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in
power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe,
Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact,
unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them
incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic
elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular
Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people
who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European
part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.
To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit
from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance.
Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization
and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled
by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided
upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle
today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic
community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then
fight for the ideal society, as they see it.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/
Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist
for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics
at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over
25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume
project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
Notes:
Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times,
24/5/2016
[xviii] see for instance Larry Elliott, "How free trade became the hot topic vexing voters
and politicians in Europe and the US" , The Guardian , 28/3/2016
[xix] Francis Elliott et al. 'Working class prefers Ukip to Labour", The Times , 25/11/2014
"... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
"... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
"... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
"... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
"... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
"... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
"... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
"... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation
into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started
the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian
hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal
and leaked to Russia Today
four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary
Clinton.
For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal
is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial
capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure
as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans
font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark,
no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in
2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with
the
e-mails the State Department released to the public .
The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal
to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release.
The
first e-mail Clinton
asks to have printed and she also
forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The
second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and
forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The
third e-mail is also
forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State
Department record completely.
This missing e-mail
from February 16, 2013 only exists in the
original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had
evidence that the
In Amenas and
Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia."
This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such
was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however,
we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence
from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough
of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English
as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies,
it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence
briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser
that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not
followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except
for the Russia Today leak.
Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be
due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in
question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary
of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is
trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State
on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.
So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail
investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia
was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into
it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton
trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough
to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary
of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed
the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with
this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission
investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this
be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly
so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?
Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi
involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the
millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?
These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed
to prevent.
Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing
Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified
until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week.
In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also
leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference
this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release,
we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest.
Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.
This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested
as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly
relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:
The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed
it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form.
This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified
information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server
despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with
such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains
why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was
deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed
e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence
and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason
why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the
first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically
"unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government
e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has
already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's
e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails
were subpoenaed, although
a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have
any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject
line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.
In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are
in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where
this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded
unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would
not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be
deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony.
In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal
and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding
the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.
Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened
After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February
29th, it has been reported in the last week that:
Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan
Pagliano, has been
given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving
testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation
and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading
the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary
extradition order to the United States
granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back
in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to
the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a
grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand
jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence
she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign
in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the
future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while
there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing
conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold
the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time
for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing.
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary
Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.
Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton -
not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators
use - is a compulsive liar.
Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything
that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an
objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently
lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality.
I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are
independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological
affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.
Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate
with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After
all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing
political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist
philosophy.
so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on
911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on
911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories
to protect their saudi pals?
BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this
piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow"
should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary
who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned
in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American
Iraq invasion too.
The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners
going back to Mena, Arkansas.
The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best
friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church
and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.
The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and
many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and
Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.
We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful
Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.
The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie
North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was
Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes
and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena
continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge.
BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped
finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy
bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no
surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so
dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.
And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal
to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in
bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather
climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."
That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department
of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation
and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are
going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs
who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.
I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He
looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits
their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to
cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United
States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments
on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what
difference does it make?
Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the
jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with
obsolete shit weapons, I think.
So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the
loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.
God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious
principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.
Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the
US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So
I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving
them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified,
then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their
private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't
see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.
As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary
learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he
ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time
to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party,
and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground
before she gives up her dream.
No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just
like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets
of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?
Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of
parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy
from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses,
and the host may die as a result.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still
time to nominate another candidate.
It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will
ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize
that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat
Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily
pissed.
Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the
article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think
she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to
Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...
BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their
sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and
compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each
campaign speech.
They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.
"... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
"... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
"... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
"... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
"... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
The New York Times
reports on
Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how
Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy
and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to
pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us
what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]
It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives
of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently
so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe"
the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to
U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are
hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the
people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support,
but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces
on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions
on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.
"Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest
problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to
take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they
can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the
"right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing
at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what
they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it
means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire
to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification
that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from
having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals
will take care of it for them later on.
The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in
other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want
to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one
takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will
take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences
of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go
awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the
"good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies
and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact
that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved
on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.
The article continues:
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's
questions have come to pass.
If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general
statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned
about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these
warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually
can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore
all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action.
That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that
wreck the lives of millions of people.
The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:
"But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction,
which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."
This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends
up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action
and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive,
militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she
already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently
backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.
Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial
reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting
a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was
calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud,
now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you,
and we don't want to.'
This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially
was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also
shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its
allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have
to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support"
France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely
could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist
from Clinton.
It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official
besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support
for the war was in making it happen.
"... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
"... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
"... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
"... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
"... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
"... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
"... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
"... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's
signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a
strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred
to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed
"channel" built out of rewards and punishments.
...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments,
have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established
a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented
anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed
Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about
the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.
...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to
jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose
and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial
sanctions and even criminal charges.
...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival
Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim
Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist
militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and
developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was
tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned
back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary
of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi
regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that
helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing
of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious
glee and
declared,
"we came, we saw, he died."
Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures
including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping
to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base.
(Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)
... ... ...
Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2,
"One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood
in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the
United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies,
has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."
... ... ...
Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country
via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel"
to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington.
But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm
American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down
Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate.
Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?
Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton
was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a
very very dangerous woman.
Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am
While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic
concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is
also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able
to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost
all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign
contributions from military industry.
For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from
1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing
the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of
each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars
since.
This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch
of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each
region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution.
It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses
of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated
syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human
or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting
the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would
read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily
be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,
The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the
universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range
of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest
range of viewpoints.
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm
Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating
until it becomes common gospel.
Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA
recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan
campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been
correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major
executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the
past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after
black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.
The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means
of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead
the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when
the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward
to…. what?
One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I
feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire
the best of efforts.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm
The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for
many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which
we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin."
This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people
around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls
close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent
is probably as perilous as she is.
Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful
to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site.
If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon
hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her
hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."
In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous
***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating
out Bush the Dumber.
Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing
the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So
far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the
neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland
and the TPP?
SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm
"So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're
trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for
building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so
the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans,
distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in,
and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country.
…" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a
la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"?
And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in
2011?
Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm
I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking,
so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the
basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the
Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an
impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched
Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a
North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about,
he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated
and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered
to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was
dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently
didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!
How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries
we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once
and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her
Wellesley education; she's not that bright.
dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am
Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her
Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating
from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy
train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker
realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization
would bring chaos throughout the region.
Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew
that, she is incapable.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm
Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings
in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've
listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there
a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US
governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong.
Could it be arrogance?
In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly
different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that
country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run
US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report
their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya,
they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out
that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives
by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be
very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable
to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested
and sympathetic listeners.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm
It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing
circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could
it be arrogance?
It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or
a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act
to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide
might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted
capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious
offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom
they were associated.
In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic."
They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing
their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they
can continue to commit more travesties.
Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence
across the region has galvanized it instead.
Moving the mercenary forces
of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight
another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they
will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across
the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects"
from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and
destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize
and destroy Egypt.
IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended
and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces
and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria,
where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely
no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining
and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in
Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.
Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya,
neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably
precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable
danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge
of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by
many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs
fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention
anyway.
One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally
create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad
to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.
Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan
people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US
Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN
gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension
of the 0.01%
rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm
All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more,
and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building
giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening
to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend
communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction,
was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country.
Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.
Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am
Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will
capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring
was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future,
thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways
of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer
products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the
Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers,
which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant
here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That
we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats),
as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our
dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to
carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's
an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will
- and no one will dare stop us.
Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like
this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President
of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories.
Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just
blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that
selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.
Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set
in motion,
Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this
commotion!
Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been
preempted,
Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt
them.
Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their
thieves for a banquet-
Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets
they'll crank it.
Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided
indictment,
Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts
of corruption.
He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no
help from Clinton,
Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner
excitement!
If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and
replace him.
The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need
to worry,
The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves
of migration.
If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is
such a quick swim!
The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance
advisor.
They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems
quite consistent-
Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the
Dinar will prosper.
Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a
miser!
Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to
a ditch,
But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone
will emerge,
They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence
will flow unabated.
The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't
be a hitch.
But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine
skills leaner and meaner,
He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make
him or break him,
He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes
spew that stench:
A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any
old wiener!
His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and
camouflaged perch.
He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet
classified selfies,
If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers
or briefs,
The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image
to smirch.
He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence
analysts squirm,
Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in
his shorts.
As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must
prevail.
There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy
trauma.
The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really
get spooked.
Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh
or a cackle.
Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible
quote:
"We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw,
and we nuked."
Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a
sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that
the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more.
It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for
world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already
know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The
western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against
radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy
will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a
good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by
reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.
Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being
installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and
that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good
against evil.
My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest
prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have
anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course
their agenda.
Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with
a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their
fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for
and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among
the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will
always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.
This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to
oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother
Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg,
Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats
and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in
part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.
Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am
Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the
people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support
them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They
are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be
utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.
The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now.
As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
Notable quotes:
"... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
"... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
"... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
"... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
"... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
"... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
"... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
"... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
"... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
"... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
"... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed
the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible
policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being
pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits
who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in
Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:
CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab
leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when
he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our
allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single
boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful,
fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has
been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which
you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that
we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland,
but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact
on what happens in a country like Libya.
In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had
produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest
indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the
catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya
itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't
have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support
for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He
threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable
and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the
secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian
and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect
regime change in a third Middle East country.
Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with
NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc
of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has
pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American
mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.
... ... ...
David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University
Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida
Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.
Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what
they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political
system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.
Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little
or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.
Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make
a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with
a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political
choice not an intelligent one.
Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal
global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal
vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that
will take too much space to elucidate.
But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi:
https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI
Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University
How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure
at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading
healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing
as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east,
her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine
entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South
China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune,
providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation
money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?
AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then
you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.
Charles Hill · Clifton High School
This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they
did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.
And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing
no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided
to support. Now ISIS is running things there.
Brian Donahue · New York, New York
The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary
will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.
Clarc King · Bronx, New York
A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic,
elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed
and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American
Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US
presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.
Linda LaRoque · Odessa College
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so
share it with those under 50.
Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary
to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about
$13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her
first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names
from consideration.
Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some
may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious
sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical
views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.
She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White
House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and
Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered
travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused
to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations,
cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale
was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.
A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was
investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and
the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even
knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years
of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill
Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more
notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation
they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr
as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation
led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's
devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath'
to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary
avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by
repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times
while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White
House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary
of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe
will fall next.
That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against
her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her
State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the
State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.
Terry Lee · Telgar
The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on?
It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!
Elizabeth Fichtl
The country is waking up.
Question put to HRC during the debate.
Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold
in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President
Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson
was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that
we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the
Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"
Leslie Ware · Preston High School
Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:
1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as
a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity
of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense
information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of
an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper,
secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone
knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example
destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still
remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the
Washington Field Office of the FBI.
2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented
Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure"
of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized
retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States
or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.
Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI
agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar
language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her
to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that
is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified
information.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years,
or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section
1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a
judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a)
shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement
of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document
required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer
within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this
pretender to the presidency really is.
Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her
previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while
saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally
incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.
Clinton for Trial 2016.
Mike Kelly
OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.
The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire
things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information
was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result,
your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political
purposes, as was done during the previous administration.
David Auner · Springfield, Missouri
This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence
is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about
repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting
tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for
every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing
out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more
than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information
about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid
for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper
analysis.
Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho
Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply
will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and
will neolib us.
Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited
US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to
Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.
Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press
The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning
up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization
destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell
over themselves to put a knife in his back.
James Charles O'Donnell III
Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who
is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in
a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?
Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability
ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper
fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election
to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that
will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those
SCOTUS seats!).
With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner,
inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely
(corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 --
and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career
enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.
Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country
and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September
11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the
administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to
prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.
... ... ...
Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi"
at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed
her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood
and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan
Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the
terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference
to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton
stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American
public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk
one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this
point, does it make?"
... ... ...
U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years
as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst
in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security
Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her
long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because
the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.
Kessler, the author of
The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal
the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members
of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to
a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means
that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation
unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations
that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial,
writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material
that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly,
that is a violation of criminal laws."
The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations
involving emails sent by
Abedin and Clinton aide
Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices
belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been
liquidated or sold.
Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton
and Abedin include:
In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008
Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin
recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no
appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for
her people to be rude."
Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a
pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent.
The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification
to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried
to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said
belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"
Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage
for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected
that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be
like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you
can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and
we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'"
The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service
for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents,
kind of like servants."
An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:
There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's
detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form
of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known
to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces,
and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents
don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect
her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect
for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.
The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one
particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related,
"The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to
her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe
I heard it."
Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former
agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they
don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall,
you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would
tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand
out of the way, don't be seen.'"
Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming
that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch,
the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket
case."
FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that
no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."
One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of
the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted,
"How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy
your suits? Penney's?"
Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit
I owned."
"... Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. ..."
"Information Clearing House" - "Defense One" - The woman expected to run
the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push
President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more
American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under
President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove
Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria
held by U.S.-backed rebels.
A weak president with jingoistic and incompetent Secretary of State is a pretty
explosive mix. A sociopathic female president with neocons inspired jingoistic foreign
policy can be a disaster for the country.
Notable quotes:
"... Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's support that put the ambivalent president over the line. ..."
"... Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all. ..."
"... Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. ..."
"... She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change." ..."
"... ...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa. ..."
"... "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war." ..."
"... "We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't get one." ..."
The president was wary. The secretary
of state was persuasive. But the ouster
of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya
a failed state and a terrorist haven.
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things
about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions,
providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H.
Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear.
And you do want to believe."
Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies
in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary,
Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's
support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers
to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.
This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have
doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for
military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White
House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation's chief diplomat,
an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably
her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait
rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of
her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether,
when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and
elsewhere in the Middle East.
... ... ...
Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department,
notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks
of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized
for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.
... ... ...
Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war,
made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel
Qaddafi's intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton
foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman.
She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias,
an effort never before confirmed.
... ... ...
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger
narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared
that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change."
... ... ...
...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles
from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political
one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa.
... ... ...
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution
supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering
his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty
language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your
shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said,
'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation
got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy
at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war."
... ... ...
"We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the
mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking
another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't
get one."
"... "There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms." ..."
"... Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management company. ..."
"... Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after Sidney Blumenthal , a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton. ..."
"... "We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12. ..."
"... "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. ..."
"... Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance, virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an archive of its old website. ..."
"... Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte River. ..."
"... A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which makes company data available online so employees can access software and services from any device. ..."
"... Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was named, for the fourth consecutive year, to CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are " ahead of the curve " in their IT offerings. ..."
And when Platte River became the latest name to emerge in the Clinton e-mail
controversy, the company maintained its silence - until last week, when it hired
a crisis-communications expert to defend against political innuendo, death threats
and allegations that it stored her e-mail in the bathroom of a downtown Denver
loft.
"There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored
in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's
server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any
bathrooms."
Hillary Clinton's decision to have an employee set up a
private e-mail server in her New York home in 2008 has plagued the former
secretary of state's presidential campaign.
The FBI is investigating whether any of her private e-mails contained sensitive
information and should have been classified - and not stored on a computer inside
her house.
Private e-mail servers are unusual because they carry greater risks of getting
hacked, said Scott W. Burt, president and CEO of Integro, a Denver e-mail management
company.
"There are a lot of people you could hire, and they would set up (an e-mail
server) and run it. That's not hard. But there's no real reason to do that,"
Burt said. "The main motivator is you're nervous about what is in your e-mail.
It's a control thing."
Boian said Platte River had nothing to do with Clinton's private home server.
Platte River, which submitted a bid for the e-mail job, stepped in four months
after Clinton left the secretary job on Feb. 1, 2013, and three months after
Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House staffer, reported that his
e-mail account had been hacked, exposing messages sent to Clinton.
"We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use
industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in
New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it
up Aug. 12.
Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he
said.
"The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage
the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013.
Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation.
And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said.
Platte River Networks opened in September 2002, offering information
technology services to small businesses. Services included computer maintenance,
virus and malware control, and emergency technical support, according to an
archive of its old website.
Two years later, the company moved into a condo owned by company co-founder
Treve Suazo at Ajax Lofts, 2955 Inca St., a few blocks from the South Platte
River.
A year later, the company began offering cloud-based services, which
makes company data available online so employees can access software and services
from any device.
Today, Platte touts itself as a full-service IT management firm.
It also lists Suazo, its CEO, and Brent Allshouse, its chief financial officer,
as co-founders. According to
industry publication CRN, Platte River expected to grow to $6 million in
sales in 2014, from $4.7 million a year earlier.
But as early as 2006, Tom Welch was listed as a partner, the same title given
to Suazo and Allshouse.
Before the Clinton scandal blew up, Platte River Networks welcomed attention.
David DeCamillis joined the company in 2008 and, as its director of business
development, became its public face, using news releases to promote industry
awards and appearing on
Fox31 Denver's
"Good Day Colorado" as a tech expert.
In 2012, Platte River was
named Ingram Micro's Rainmaker of the Western Region, an honor that California
technology distributor gives its fastest-growing business partners based on
revenue, peer-to-peer leadership and use of Ingram Micro's cloud services.
That same year, the company won the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce's
Small Business of the Year award. The award is vetted by the chamber and
independent judges, said Abram Sloss, executive director of the chamber's small-business
development center.
"We really look for companies that have a good chance for a strong uptick
and have solid growth," Sloss said. While the chamber can offer advice to members
who suddenly are thrown into the media spotlight - for good or bad - Sloss said
he has not heard from the company.
"Gosh, if I was the company who the Clintons hired, it'd be hard not to say,
'We are a trusted provider that one of the influential families in the United
States hired,' " Sloss said.
Platte River continues to win awards and has grown. Last week, it was
named, for the fourth consecutive year, to
CRN's Next-Gen 250 . The list highlights companies that are "
ahead of the curve" in their IT offerings.
In June, it moved to a 12,000-square-foot building at 5700 Washington St.
A photo on Platte River's
blog shows 30 people posing in the new building.
Platte River did not make DeCamillis, now its vice president of sales and
marketing, available for comment.
But DeCamillis
told The Washington Post that no one at the company had expected this kind
of attention, which he said included death threats that caused the company to
pull employee information from its website.
If they had, he said, "we would never have taken it on."
Platte River Networks timeline
2002: Platte River Networks founded
2004: Moves to 2955 Inca St., Unit 2K
Feb. 1, 2013: Hillary Clinton's last day as secretary of state
June 2013: Hired to manage Clinton-family e-mail server, which
is moved from their Chappaqua, N.Y., home to a secure data center in New
Jersey
June 18, 2015: Hosts
open house for new headquarters at 4700 Washington St.
Aug. 11, 2015: FBI asks for Clinton's e-mail server
Aug. 12, 2015: Delivers Clinton's server to the FBI from New
Jersey
"... Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements. ..."
"... His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus? ..."
"... Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) ..."
"... Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes. ..."
"... Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen? ..."
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme
is such bullshit.
You used the wrong tense. It's not "would be". It's "are". There are
"little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified.
Right now. Actually in prison.
She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared
to see.
Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean
you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements
for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not
use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys
on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected
printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements.
Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified
stuff to his journalist girlfriend
His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding
of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance,
and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough
to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?
but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage
of the traffic
Please cite where the statute states the percentage of allowable leaks.
and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS
server had she been using that
First, government servers are regularly scanned for classified, so it
would have been caught long before there were thousands of classified in
her email. Second, the unclassified DoS server is far, far, far more secure
than her basement server. For example, they don't have default VPN keys
installed.
What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about
Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light.
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. But shouting "Benghazi!!!!"
does a great job getting people like you to turn off their critical thinking
and accept this week's excuse.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:31PM (
#52778125 )
Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
Comey spent hours in front of Congress explaining, very patiently,
over and over, that the reason he could not recommend prosecution against
Clinton is because all of the suspected crimes required proof of intent,
which the FBI did not have.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the
bolded section :
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified
information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That
is true?
Comey : There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey : She used multiple devices during the four years of her
term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned
to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey : No. We found work related email, thousands, that were
not returned.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted
work related emails from her personal account.
Comey : That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work
related emails in - on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or
when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt
that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email
system.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the
emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content
individually?
Comey : No.
Gowdy : Well, in the interest of time and because I have a
plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more
of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat.
False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey : Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence
of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy : Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey : That is right?
Gowdy : Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job
you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of
a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the
public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction
that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You
would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also - intent.
You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started,
when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified
or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably,
under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries
or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should
have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information.
You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United
States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends
is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson.
He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept
the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress
because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office,
thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were
classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked
and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the
destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence
of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely
do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code
section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on
this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial
evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove,
specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent
for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing
to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email
scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track
justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That
if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information
you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion
to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today
is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to,
the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently
than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:50PM (
#52777831 )
Powell used an aol account. He did NOT put a private server in his house!
Same for Rice. Powell used it for non-state NON-classified business.
Hillary has lied so many times about this server, is is clear to any
hones observer that she was hiding activities of corruption with the Clinton
foundation and did not want FOIA to discover her activities.
Hillary was supposed to have government archivists sort through the mails,
not her personal attorneys. That was a violation of the federal records
act.
She had classified information on the server, despite assertions that
she did not- caught in another lie. She said all work related mails were
turned over. Another lie- the FBI found thousands of work related mails
not turned over, including classified.
Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email
server was that she wasn't secure enough with it.
My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:13PM (
#52778643 )
1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was
vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking
office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files
were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no
clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only
about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of
tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:24PM (
#52778703 )
Hillary Clinton's IT guy purchased an MS Exchange hosting contract from
Platte River. The standard package came with a periodic backup to a Datto
appliance, which takes snapshots of the Windows disk image several times
a day. The appliance copies the snapshot to Datto's data center in real
time. You can erase or even destroy the Windows machine drives and still
use the snapshots to restore the disks to the snapshot of the time and date
of your chosing.
The FBI confiscated the appliance from Platte River and seized the server
from Datto. They have all the emails she sent and received since the start
of her State Department tenure.
Hillary Clinton co-mingled personal and official government communications
on her private email server. All of those communications are subject to
the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Her personal emails ceased to be personal when she co-mingled them with
official government communications. HRC and her lawyers were not authorized
to decide what is relevant to FRA and FOIA and what is not.
HRC and her lawyers deleted 30,000 or so emails that are not recoverable
- therefore she is in violation of both the FRA and FOIA.
HRC should be, at the very least, in front of a jury to answer for her
actions.
I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either
ignorant, or disingenuous.
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested
from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print
out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away
metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including
(by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.
FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were
NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those
that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know.
Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing
which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of
thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department
emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?
That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing
whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's
the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying
evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and
they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over
ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant"
documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even
criminal charges.
Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the
server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel
until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising
here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but
because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating
evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever).
If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys
would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.
Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried
among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And
if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand,
I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want
to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the
destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy
paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place.
But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like
we'll ever know, though, does it?
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they
were requested from the House as part of an official investigation.
She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably
to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.)
In other words, she willingly destroyed information she was required
to hand over.
The full Headers and all Metadata are part of the Record and part of
the E-mail; If you are requested to hand over the e-mails: you have no right
to exclude or remove headers, even if your standard e-mail software does
not normally display the headers when you are reading the message.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:10PM (
#52778941 )
A: "But anyone could hack in and see her emails, it's totally unsecure!"
B: "She used BleachBit."
A: "That proves she had something to hide!"
Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server
and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server,
it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting
e-mail messages about yoga classes.
Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered
an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen?
Congress committees have a couple really tough prosecutors as chairs and that
created a ground for Hillary impeachment if she is elected. Also "August
break" due to Hillary deteriorating health creates a problem for Hillary campaign
as the candidate now is considered by many voters as too frail to hold a POTUS position.
This negative impression is supported now by so many facts that it can 't be changed
by rabid attacks on Trump. Some Clinton actions in "bathroom server" scandal now
can be attributed to her senility.
Notable quotes:
"... Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon is calling the FBI's move to give the notes to Congress "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI." ..."
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign says it wants FBI documents on the
investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server to be shared publicly
and not just with members of Congress.
Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon is calling the FBI's move to give the
notes to Congress "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans
for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the
FBI."
Fallon says if the material is going to be shared outside the Justice Department,
it "should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves."
He says Republicans should not be allowed to "mischaracterize" the information
"through selective, partisan leaks."
A Republican-led House oversight panel is reviewing the documents that have
been classified as secret.
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.
"... Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer. ..."
"... The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by the State Department. ..."
"... It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack of transparency. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons. ..."
"... A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? ..."
"... I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and liberal Washington. ..."
Guciffer found top secret E-mail on Blumenthal's (I think that is
the guy) account according to the agents who studied Guciffer's computer.
You can always tell when a politician lies; their lips are moving.
DLivesInTexas
"The arrangement, while it appears unusual, was and is acceptable
and legal, according to the State Department."
The legality of her choice has yet to be determined and will likely
hinge on the degree to which classified government documents were exposed
or disseminated. It was - and still is - against the rules published by
the State Department.
It is also an amazingly arrogant act by a politician who often attacked
previous administrations for their use of "private emails" and overall lack
of transparency.
Genny G
Hillary Clinton has been insecure for years and for many reasons.
StrongHarm
A person is insecure, a network is unsecured. No? Author should
correct title.
I saw a video where Alabama State troopers are talking about how
Hillary and Bill used to swap women. She also apparently has a big affinity
for cocaine..though I guess in all fairness that's most of Hollywood and
liberal Washington. As a conservative myself, what I detest about the
woman most is not how she affects republicans, but how she affects her own
supporters. She claims to be 'looking out for the little guy' and minorities
so she can get votes, but when the cameras aren't rolling, she's doing business
with corrupt corporations and trying to live like a queen. A lot of politicians
are dishonest, but she really takes the cake.
This is an important summary of symptom that are known from open sources...
Notable quotes:
"... Road to Recovery from Parkinson's Disease ..."
"... This situation with Hillary is like the sickly, mentally deficient child of a recently deceased monarch being installed as a puppet ruler who is completely under the control of shadowy advisers. ..."
"... Not just other countries, Doomberg. Mrs. Wilson did a great job of hiding her husband's stroke which left him in a coma as she ran the country. It has happened here before, as well. ..."
"... e psychopaths are selected never elected ..."
Hillary's health is declining, as anyone who has looked at her can see. The
question is: What condition does she have? A board certified Anesthesiologist
has written a memo of Hillary's health. Feel free to pass it along to doctors
and to analytics and criticize it.
Hillary Clinton (HRC) has suffered a variety of health issues. Unfortunately,
she has declined to make her medical records public. In July of 2015 her personal
physician released a letter asserting her "excellent physical condition." Unfortunately,
multiple later episodes recorded on video strongly suggest that the content
of the letter is incorrect. This discussion is designed to sort through the
known facts and propose a possible medical explanation for these events. In
keeping with Occam's Razor, a single explanation that covers everything is preferred.
In 2009, HRC fell and broke her elbow . Little else
was made public.
[i]
On December 17, 2012, while Secretary of State, HRC fell and suffered
a concussion.
[ii] Later, a transverse sinus thrombosis was diagnosed, resulting in
chronic anticoagulation therapy.
[iii] Her post-concussion syndrome was declared "recovered" in about
six months.
[iv] The original fall was publicly attributed to dehydration following
gastroenteritis.
An email from Huma Abedin (HRC's closest advisor) on January
26, 2013, says that HRC "is often confused."
[v]
Photos show being assisted up what appears to be the steps of a residential
porch. This apparently happened in February of 2016. On August 4, 2016,
Reuters and Getty published the photos.
[vi]
At a rally on May 2, 2016, HRC demonstrates classic PD hand
posturing .
[vii] She has
no lectern in front, so she starts with her right hand pressed against her
chest. At the 18:02 mark, she starts gesturing with her right hand, which
is in a very unnatural position that is common in PD.
On July 21, 2016 HRC was filmed talking to reporters at close range
when several spoke at once. Without warning, she started a bizarre
head-bobbing episode that must be seen rather than described. After
several cycles, she regained control and declared that the reporters "must
try the iced chai."
[viii]
On July 28, 2016, during the balloon drop, HRC suddenly looks
up with a frozen wide-mouth and wide-eyed stare . After a couple
of seconds she regains control and a more normal expression.
[ix]
On August 5, HRC declared that she had "short circuited"
[x] a response to Chris Wallace in an interview that aired July 31 on
Fox News Sunday.
[xi]
August 6, 2016, at a campaign rally, HRC freezes with wide eyes
in response to protestors . A large black male who commonly accompanies
her leans in and tells her "It's OK. We're not going anywhere. Keep talking…"
Shortly after, she laughs strangely and then says "OK. Here we are. We'll
keep talking."
[xii]
Several recent photos show HRC with an inappropriately exaggerated
wide-mouthed smile and extreme wide-open eyes . Several videos
show her laughing inappropriately and for extended periods. Numerous events
have been interrupted by prolonged episodes of coughing unrelated to any
infectious cause.
This discussion will not argue that the black male is carrying
a diazepam injector, since there is a plausible argument that it is actually
a small flashlight, and is seen in other video to be such. We will also
not discuss the circular area on her tongue. It appears to be the site of
a mass excision. Benign explanations that do not bear on chronic health
issues may easily be proffered.
Discussion:
The HRC campaign meme is that "there's nothing to see here."
But numerous trained observers have noted multiple other, more subtle bits that
strongly support the argument below.
After the 2012 fall, HRC had post-concussion syndrome (PCS). She should have
declared herself unable to fulfill her duties as Secretary of State. Her resignation
from the position shortly thereafter may have satisfied this need without public
medical discussion. If no other questionable medical signs had appeared, this
discussion would end here. But the other events and signs point to a single
cause for the fall, and it is not the public explanation. Further, HRC's statement
early in her tenure as Secretary of State that she would serve only four years
can be read in the context of a progressive disease that was known as she assumed
the post.
It is the premise of this discussion the HRC is most likely suffering from
Parkinson's Disease (PD).
It explains every one of the items listed above. Further, since it is a diagnosis
primarily made by observation, the video record is sufficient to create a high
degree of certainty.
The 2009 fall where HRC broke her elbow suggests that she had working protective
reflexes, and her arm took the brunt of the fall. But three years later, she
had a catastrophic fall where her reflexes were unable to help her. It is notable
that this fall took place at home, where she would have been unstressed and
in a familiar setting. Failing reflexes are common in PD. Poor balance is also
common in PD, and a fall without working protective reflexes is a prescription
for head injury. Her subsequent concerns with transverse sinus thrombosis are
plausibly related to the fall. Her need for fresnel lens glasses also fits with
post-concussion syndrome.
Huma Abedin's email comment can be referring to PCS as well, since it was
during the six-month period of rehab. One must, however, be cautious not to
overlook persistent cognitive problems that PCS can have. (Editorial note: The
reader will note that this discussion is giving the benefit of the doubt to
as many HRC memes as can reasonably earn it.)
2016 starts a spate of new data. The photos of HRC being helped up the steps
is consistent with a fall similar to 2012, but with a security detail close
enough to catch her before she fell to the ground. This matches the loss of
reflexes and balance with PD.
On July 21 a video of HRC is posted that has many observers calling a "seizure."
We should note the setting. She is answering questions, and then multiple
reporters call out at the same time. Such a shock is often too much stress for
a PD patient, and the patient suffers an "on/off" episode. Higher control turns
off and an unpredictable dyskinesia takes over. Shortly she switches back "on"
and regains control. Her mind froze during the "off" state, but was aware, so
she is able to speak again, but inappropriately.
It should be noted that such dyskinesias are sufficiently common with long
term treatment that they have a name: Parkinson's Disease LevoDopa Induced Dyskinesia
(PD LID).
A week later, during the balloon drop at the Convention, HRC suddenly "freezes."
This is an "off" moment manifested by bradykinesia, another PD problem. The
particular form is a brief oculogyric crisis, complete with head arched back,
fixed gaze, and wide open mouth. Again, this is common in PD. We should compare
it to HRC's facial expressions on "Live with Kelly and Michael" on November
19, 2015. [xiii]
At 6:30 in that video, we also see a PD tremor and posture in her left hand
when it comes to rest momentarily. In most videos her hands are in constant
motion or clasped against some object. These are strategies to suppress a tremor.
HRC's description of her false answers to Chris Wallace as a "short circuit"
is extremely unusual.
It comes from the field of electronics, in which HRC has never been involved.
The Urban Dictionary definition is electrical, and there is no popular or slang
usage. But one semi-technical description of PD calls it "short-circuiting"
brain circuits.
[xiv] Did she hear this during a doctor's explanation of her disease? It
would not be unusual to parrot such a phrase if she has PD.
Days later, HRC "freezes" again at a campaign rally. This "off" state is
like the others, triggered by a startle/stress reaction. But what is more telling
is that the security detail gives her specific instructions in an attempt to
get her to turn "on" again. She then parrots those exact words as she restarts.
This is another PD sign.
The numerous episodes of prolonged coughing are another tell. Swallowing
disorders are very common in PD. They can lead to aspiration pneumonia, the
most common cause of death in PD. But before that they lead to chronic difficulty
swallowing saliva. It gets onto the vocal cords, leading to coughing in an attempt
to clear them. The high frequency of these episodes strongly suggests a major
swallowing disorder.
Multiple episodes of inappropriate and extended laughter have also been documented.
This, again, is common in PD.
We do not have video evidence of the "pill rolling" tremor that is common
in PD. But that is not a major concern for our thesis. Treatment with levodopa
can reduce it. Also, PD sufferers develop a variety of techniques to hide it.
Since it is a tremor at rest, keeping the hands in motion suppresses it. Grasping
objects such as a lectern can also hide it. As long as the hands are busy, it
is usually not visible.
Summary:
HRC probably has PD.
She has had clinical symptoms for a minimum of 4 years, and probably much
longer, given that the fall leading to her head injury required a significant
progression of the disease. All of her bizarre physical actions since that time
fit nicely into the spectrum of signs that we expect in PD. And since PD explains
all of them, we have a high probability of a correct diagnosis. It has almost
certainly been treated with levodopa. Some of her symptoms may be related to
this drug treatment.
It is most curious that all of the bizarre physical signs seem to be in 2016
videos. HRC was a public figure in 2015, with a lot of campaign work underway.
Yet all of the oddities seem to be within the last several months. This suggests
a significant progression of her PD. We also know that her contact with the
public has been rigidly controlled. She has not done news conferences during
the campaign. These would be highly stressful to a PD sufferer and would elicit
many PD signs.
PD is a chronic disease with a downhill prognosis. HRC's instability and
frequent cough suggest that her PD is advanced. This is not a good outlook for
someone running for the Presidency. The office of the President is one of the
highest stress jobs in the world. Stress sets off PD episodes, which render
the sufferer incapable of proper response.
At this point, a bit of speculation seems appropriate. HRC talks about her
yoga sessions. But no one we know of has ever documented one. It is possible
that this is cover for sessions designed to teach her coping mechanisms for
PD or for rest breaks. Exhaustion makes PD worse.
HRC's coughing suggests that her swallowing disorder is advanced, placing
her closer to an aspiration pneumonia that would disable or kill her. That's
bad enough, but PD has one more, even more dangerous step in its progression.
As PD continues, cognitive problems can develop. In time, they become full-blown
dementia. The United States cannot survive if its President is mentally impaired.
Conclusion:
It is not appropriate for a physician to make a diagnosis at a distance.
But since the evidence in the public record so strongly suggests that HRC has
moderate to advanced PD, it is imperative that HRC release her complete
medical record to an impartial panel of physicians for review. It is not
necessary for the public at large to see them. Such a panel should be secure
in its deliberations and should present a summary to the public. If she has
PD, the panel would know and it would be made public. If not, then the air would
clear.
Note on authorship:
The author of this document is a board-certified Anesthesiologist with 36
years of experience. That brings with it the ability to understand medical discussions,
but not the expertise to evaluate PD signs and symptoms.
The first subject matter expert is a close friend of the author. This person
is a brilliant businessman who was forced to sell his interest in eight successful
businesses because early onset PD made him unable to continue in the daily duties
of business. He is well versed in PD and sees its ravages in himself.
The second subject matter expert is the author's brother. He is an RN who
spent two years working 12-hour shifts caring for PD patients in a nursing home.
This saturation experience allows him to pick up PD signs automatically. He
notes that he called HRC's PD and levodopa therapy when he watched the famous
"What difference does it make?" exchange. Her mannerisms and behavior were classic
and stereotypical.
Of interest is that during a teleconference, the author called the others
to look at HRC's left hand during the "Live With Kelly and Michael" video. The
clip was played, and neither of the others even saw her hand. They
were both riveted to her eyes, and both exclaimed that her eyes were "classic
PD." The clip had to be played a second and third time before they could even
take their gaze away from her eyes. They did finally see her hand and agree
that it was also demonstrating PD.
Very thorough observations. If this turns out to be true it's beyond
me that the Democrats would continue to back her as a candidate for president.
Poor judgment in my opinion.
If this turns out to be true it's beyond me that the Democrats would
continue to back her as a candidate for president. Poor judgment in
my opinion.
This situation with Hillary is like the sickly, mentally deficient
child of a recently deceased monarch being installed as a puppet ruler who
is completely under the control of shadowy advisers.
This is the kind of thing that used to happen in places like Imperial
China or Egypt during the time of the pharaohs... this should not be happening
in the United States of America!
Not just other countries, Doomberg. Mrs. Wilson did a great job of
hiding her husband's stroke which left him in a coma as she ran the country.
It has happened here before, as well.
Mrs. Wilson didn't live in today's technical world. Mrs. Wilson didn't
have deployed forces at play carrying massive weapons of war. Neither did
she have nuclear armaments at her disposal. Mrs. Wilson wasn't involved
in a war with an enemy army that America had imported onto it's own soil.
Mrs. Wilson didn't use the most childish judgement ever by conducting
government business on her own basement servers leaving the entire country
open to malicious mismanagement. Mrs. Wilson didn't abandon American citizens
in Benghazi and leave them to be mutilated and murdered because she wanted
to take a nap.
Even without dementia, she's proven that she is an inept government worker
and is not qualified for the position and will place America in jeopardy.
The fact that the democratic party hires people to make comments like
yours on the internet is further proof that corruption is part and parcel
of weak and greedy people who put the well being of their own country low
on their list of priorities. Unless the democrats are forwarding your payment
for that comment to Saudi Arabia, you'd be a traitor.
Don't forget Ronald and Nancy. Yes, dementia happens to Republicans too,
and Donald Trump clearly has cognitive issues that prevent him from staying
on script or exhibiting the smallest shred of empathy for others.
Dimentia came much later, after he had served his two terms. Nice try
though. But, I suppose that since he wore hearing aids, this only helped
him really, he could turn the volume down when idiots began talking too
much.
The psychopaths are selected never elected, 'tis a game of charades,
whilst Obummer and Michael await in The Dark House wings, martial law shall
be what the 'happy couple' sings.
FDR had already been diagnosed with terminal congestive heart failure
and was periodically mentally incompetent before he ran for re-election
in November of 1944. He probably should have resigned prior to finishing
his third term, and DEFINITELY should not have run for a fourth, but the
truth about his health had been kept from the American people.
the majority of the democrats backing her are doing it not because they
like her but because they stupidly fear Trump more than her.
i expect they will put their head in the sand about this news and hope
it doesn't get any traction. yes that's right, they'd rather have a sickly
ill president, then one that is tee total, clean and healthy as an ox
While Bill was President, the Clintons were found to have, illegally,
of course, a number of FBI files on the "enemies". Sorry, I can't recall
the whole story.
The RINO and Democrat establishments both fear that Donald Trump will
free U.S. policy from the control of globalist interests, cutting off the
gravy train for the vast majority of professional politicians who have been
in the pay of the globalist cabal for the past 30 years.
Lynch: How is your granddaughter Chelsea? Bubba: She's fine. How are your grandkids? Lynch: They're doing great too. Bubba: Too bad if anything were to happen to them
I understand she said something about being a steady hand at the time
of reckoning. Funny always thought of the anti Christ would be a man.
Does this make me sexist?
"... Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years. Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria, and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention" are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013, but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict. ..."
"... The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K. governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment, and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on. ..."
"... The U.S. could have been more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb, they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position, and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it. ..."
Anne Applebaum
bemoans the decision not to bomb Syria three years ago:
I repeat: Maybe a U.S.-British-French intervention would have ended in
disaster. If so, we would today be mourning the consequences. But sometimes
it's important to mourn the consequences of nonintervention too. Three years
on, we do know, after all, exactly what nonintervention has produced.
One of the more frustrating things about the debate over Syria policy is
the widely-circulated idea that refraining from military action makes a government
responsible for any or all of the things that happen in a foreign conflict later
on. Somehow our government is responsible for the effects of a war when it
isn't directly contributing to the conflict by dropping bombs, but
doesn't receive any blame when it is helping to stoke the same conflict by other
means. Many pundits lament the failure to bomb Syria, but far fewer object to
the harm done by sending weapons to rebels that have contributed to the overall
mayhem in Syria.
Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but
the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years.
Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have
been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example
of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria,
and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments
haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention"
are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013,
but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including
the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict.
Let's remember what the Obama administration proposed doing in August 2013.
Obama was going to order attacks on the Syrian government to punish it for the
use of chemical weapons, but his officials insisted this would be an "unbelievably
small" action in order to placate skeptics worried about an open-ended war.
If the attack had been as "unbelievably small" as promised, it would have weakened
the Syrian government's forces but likely wouldn't have changed anything about
the overall conflict. Even judged solely by how much of the Syrian government's
chemical weapons arsenal it eliminated, it would have been less successful than
the disarmament agreement that was reached.
If the intervention had expanded and turned into a much more ambitious campaign,
as opponents of the proposed bombing feared it could, it would have almost certainly
redounded to the benefit of jihadist groups because it was attacking their enemies.
It seems fair to assume that a "successful" bombing campaign in 2013 would have
exposed more of Syria to the depredations of ISIS and other jihadists. It would
not have hurt ISIS or other jihadists in the least since they were not going
to be targeted by it, so it is particularly absurd to try to blame ISIS's later
actions on the decision not to attack. If the bombing campaign was perceived
to be "not working" quickly enough, that would have prompted demands for an
even larger U.S. military role in Syria in the months and years that followed.
Bombing Syria in 2013 would not have ended the war earlier, but would have made
the U.S. a more involved party to it than it is today. I fail to see how that
would have been a better outcome for the U.S. or the people of Syria. It is
doubtful that fewer Syrians overall would have been killed and displaced in
the wake of such a bombing campaign. It is tendentious in the extreme to assert
that the decision not to bomb is responsible for the war's later victims and
effects.
The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable
moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K.
governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by
the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment,
and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to
the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments
have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama
has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives
on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging
wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly
learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular
their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most
have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Applebaum's interventionist lament is the
complete failure to acknowledge that other states and groups have their own
agency and would have continued to do harm in Syria regardless of what the U.S.
did or didn't do. Bombing Syria in 2013 wouldn't have made the conflict any
easier to resolve, nor would it have altered the interests of the warring parties.
It would have been an exercise in blowing things up and killing people to show
that we were taking "action." It would have been the most senseless sort of
intervening for the sake of being seen to intervene.
The U.S. could have been
more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that
would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction
on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb,
they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that
posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position,
and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it.
"... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
"... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
"... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
"... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal.
All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations,
estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question --
"war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.
"Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
"... But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really special. A unique achievement of Secretary Clinton. ..."
"... for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents. ..."
And here's a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate's character are
to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she
is proposing.
... ... ...
In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can't afford another
election tipped by innuendo.
After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the
level of crime committed to be arrested.
But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence
for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really
special. A unique achievement of Secretary Clinton.
Now I am not so sure that the level of incompetence of Hillary and her
aides in this sordid saga is less it was for the key figures of Bush II
administration (who also used a private email server for a while with impunity,
although not for State Department activities).
But for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer
security the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply
unreal. Especially after the latest FBI documents.
Can you imagine that they have no technical knowledge of how to create
the archive of emails in Windows Server directly and used Apple laptop and
then Gmail account and then intermediaries to achieve the necessary result.
This is something so stupid and reckless that there is no words for it.
Also wiping out this "bathroom" mail server with BleachKit is a very
suspicious activity for any person under investigation.
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
...The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
...Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
...I like how the argument has devolved here to "If Bush did it, then
it's ok". PopeRatzo, is Dubya really your moral compass? Your guiding light?
...Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from
tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know
of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal
emails, except Clinton.
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/...
[wired.com] another source
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] , another
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.
...My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
...1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it
was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon
taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's
files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers
(no clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were
only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes
of tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack: Are
you a Nixon supporter? Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump
or Dick Cheney?
"... Clintons crimes with national security leaks and destruction of federal records investigators got no prosecution. The democrat camp has no convictions. The curve Hillary is on is the same one any tin pot dictator enjoys. ..."
"... False equivalence. The world was different in 2008-2012 , Powell had far fewer hackers when he was lying about Iraq. The tech world was much less threatening. Powell learned from his training, knew better than to go past secure networks for sensitive information. He also knew about federal records act and penalties. ..."
"... Clinton crimes are called scandals. She got no convictions. ..."
"... Should Trump take the brass ring, let us hope he isn't really as brash or inept as Bush Jr, but that's asking a LOT ..."
"... And if Hillary does win (as expected), let's look forward to having that charming rogue in the White House at her side. Let's manage to bring the wars to an end & have peace rule the planet, mostly. ..."
"... That last sentence is certainly something we can and should hope for. However, given her somewhat hawkish disposition and likely need to demonstrate that she has the balls to be commander in Chief, I would not preclude the possibility of a little fighting somewhere. However, the consolation is that she did not ask the generals "if we have nukes why don't we use them"? Turns out there are worser things than bad. ..."
"... As someone who has been involved in the national security system for more than four decades, I can't help but nearly vomit when I read Hillary's answers to the FBI's questions. Had I or any other cleared employee of lesser stature given the same answers, we would have been fired if not prosecuted for our behavior. Here irresponsible behavior was dangerous to our security and disgusting. ..."
"... You think Clinton is going to turn out to be bolder and more progressive than her elite and plutocratic backers suspect. Maybe. Time will tell. But I'm just saying that if part of the Democrats' goal was to generate the kind of electoral groundswell that would sweep a whole new progressive House into power, you don't get that kind of result by nominating party royalty and an old guard representative of the national establishment and the administrations of the last century. ..."
"... Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it? I know people will say the euphemism, where there is smoke there is fire, but come on. Mind you the secrecy the Clintons exhibit does their cause no good, but just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you! ..."
"... If any of the scandals went to a jury instead of being swept under the rug, we might have judgements. If I did what Clinton did with information security I would be in jail. If I did that with federal records I would do time as well! ..."
And here's a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate's character are
to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she
is proposing.
... ... ...
In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can't afford another
election tipped by innuendo.
"True, there aren't many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon
of honesty. But it's hard to escape the impression that he's being graded
on a curve."
Trump supporters would have you believe his immigration policy is the
same as that of Jeb! and little Marco. Never mind what he told that white
audience. They would also have you believe he is all for equal rights for
black people. Never mind what he told that white audience.
Krugman is saying that Bush was the most dishonest candidate ever in
2000. Well - that was so 16 years ago. Romney 2012 was much worse. And Trump
2016 is reminding me of Romney 2012.
A curve! while Clintons crimes with national security leaks and destruction
of federal records investigators got no prosecution. The democrat camp has
no convictions. The curve Hillary is on is the same one any tin pot dictator
enjoys.
It's actually the same one Colin Powell enjoyed, except Hillary's private
email system was far more secured and, unlike Powell's janky use of an AOL
account that got hacked, there's no evidence HRC's was compromised.
False equivalence. The world was different in 2008-2012 , Powell had
far fewer hackers when he was lying about Iraq. The tech world was much
less threatening. Powell learned from his training, knew better than to
go past secure networks for sensitive information. He also knew about federal
records act and penalties.
Yes isn't it remarkable how Trump can say opposite things within the same
month, week or even in the same speech - and just be considered to have
"evolved" rather than being chastised for trying to pander to all sides.
Again if he were judged by a standard even half as critical as a Clinton
he would have evaporated long time ago.
George Bush Jr (particularly with 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the financial
crash) was a spectacularly inept president and considered one of the worst
ever.
His predecessor was a largely successful yet quite 'colorful' president,
who had great economic success with the internet boom, which VP Al Gore
did have a minor legislative hand in dontchaknow. Barely fought a war. Got
impeached.
Both fellows were loved or hated by a lot of people, who don't talk to
one another much.
It has now come to pass that a guy who reminds us of the former is running
against the spouse of the latter. Complications ensue. Go figure.
Should Trump take the brass ring, let us hope he isn't really as
brash or inept as Bush Jr, but that's asking a LOT, so don't chance
it, please.
And if Hillary does win (as expected), let's look forward to having
that charming rogue in the White House at her side. Let's manage to bring
the wars to an end & have peace rule the planet, mostly.
That last sentence is certainly something we can and should hope for.
However, given her somewhat hawkish disposition and likely need to demonstrate
that she has the balls to be commander in Chief, I would not preclude the
possibility of a little fighting somewhere. However, the consolation is
that she did not ask the generals "if we have nukes why don't we use them"?
Turns out there are worser things than bad.
And which Clinton robots are running around like tailgunner Joe screaming
that Putin is trying to out do AIPAC?
The democrat peace movement steps aside for spreading organized murder
from expensive weapons system to do "civilian protective operations" and
the Saudi's bidding against Shiites.
Keep the money flowing and the drones causing justifiable at lest to
Lockheed and Boeing shareholders "militarily proportional collateral damage".
"Barely fought a war." Bill's little wars in the Balkans rubber the Tsar's
nose in it, broke up a several small countries, bombed the Chinese embassy
at great profit from a B-2 (it did not rain that day) and US still pays
NATO for a huge military base there.
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal. All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme
court nominations, estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal
question -- "war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never have a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. "Trump this and Trump that"
blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmonger and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
W been out for over 7 years and the body bag strategy is the same. Obama
ran on ending Iraq and he did NOT vote for AUMF!
I suggest the collateral damage caused by Obama and Clinton is surging
past W, who had only 6 years to do it.
Clinton and Obama will be at it 8 years and for Libya and Syria are [related
to percent of population] past Iraq. Syria has military appropriate collateral
damage more than Iraq since 1993.
You cannot call someone nut so you can ignore facts.
As someone who has been involved in the national security system for
more than four decades, I can't help but nearly vomit when I read Hillary's
answers to the FBI's questions. Had I or any other cleared employee of lesser
stature given the same answers, we would have been fired if not prosecuted
for our behavior. Here irresponsible behavior was dangerous to our security
and disgusting.
Hillary is every bit as honest as her husband was when he answered "I
have not had sex with that woman." The two of them deserve each other. The
rest of the country deserves neither of them.
As someone who also knows a little about network security and the umpteen
bazillion ways most people violate stated policies, including Secretaries
Rice and Powell who established the precedent at State for Hillary's use
of a private email system ...
I think you're overreacting, and myopic, and possibly concern trolling.
I agree the 2nd trolly paragraph the commenter paints himself as a kook
still luridly fascinated with Bill Clinton's sex life. haha
But I think it's worth pointing out that people who work or have worked
for the government in less illustrious (non political) positions are subject
to a lot of what seems like nit-picky draconian rules, under threat of having
one's work life made miserable, at least for a time, for breaking any little
one of them.
It's just the nature of the beast of that type of govt employment. It's
a lot of stress. And politically appointed & elected government workers
at least seem to get away with a lot comparatively.
So I think it's worth acknowledging, when seen from that position, the
attitude, and feelings, are understandable, even if you don't agree with
it.
I would drop the 2nd paragraph in future if you want to be heard. Because
otherwise people don't think about what you said before it because you've
just come across as one of those kind of people who were telling lame old
tired monica jokes a decade after the fact. *sigh*
The key question is whether that will be better or worse for the country.
I think Hillary is a more dangerous war criminal, then just corrupt businessman
like Trump. Trump university is less important then the vote for Iraq war,
IMHO.
You think Clinton is going to turn out to be bolder and more progressive
than her elite and plutocratic backers suspect. Maybe. Time will tell. But
I'm just saying that if part of the Democrats' goal was to generate the
kind of electoral groundswell that would sweep a whole new progressive House
into power, you don't get that kind of result by nominating party royalty
and an old guard representative of the national establishment and the administrations
of the last century.
That would be more (arguably) true if Hillary weren't drawing votes from
such Republicans. Which naturally concerns progressive Dems. This is perhaps
a wave that alters the GOP for a long time.
According to the Clinton Rules, the appearance of the possibility of
impropriety, no matter how trivial or technical in nature, is to be deemed
prima facie as credible evidence of guilt, and any and all innuendo brought
forth is to be treated as serious.
Thus, Whitewater. And Vince Foster. And Benghazi. And "Wall Street speeches."
And everything related to the word "emails." And State Dept "access". And
whatever else is the manufact-roversy of the day.
Meanwhile, the media and the public widely regard both Hillary and Trump
as "dishonest", as if there were any semblance of equivalence.
It's clear why this happens ... there is a confluence of interest, among
Republicans, Bernie Busters, and the media, in manufacturing controversy
surrounding Hillary Clinton. The GOP wants to weaken her. The Busters resent
her. And the media desperately wants a horse race and to be able to create
"both sides do it" equivalence in order to bolster their own reputations
for objectivity. The sad thing is that so many Americans are gullible enough
to buy it.
This whole thing is amazing. For thirty years, the republicans discover
a scandal on average about twice a year, starting I think with White Water.
Oh sure all official and all, Congressional Hearings, investigators and
in the end nada. Not once has an indictment, no arrests, how do people
keep holding on to some belief that there must be something to it? I know
people will say the euphemism, where there is smoke there is fire, but come
on. Mind you the secrecy the Clintons exhibit does their cause no good,
but just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get
you!
After Bush II administration it is generally unclear what should be the
level of crime committed to be arrested.
But potentially opening an important view on the US diplomatic correspondence
for four years to any state with the desire to read it is something really
special. A unique achievement of Secretary Hillary.
Now I am not so sure that the level of incompetence of Hillary and her
aides in this sordid saga is less it was for the key figures of Bush II
administration (who also used a private email server for a while with impunity,
although not for State Department activities).
But for any specialist with even superficial knowledge of computer security
the level of incompetence and arrogance demonstrated is simply unreal. Especially
after the latest FBI documents.
Can you imagine that they have no technical knowledge of how to create
the archive of emails in Windows Server directly and used Apple laptop and
then Gmail account and intermediaries to achieve the necessary result. This
is something so stupid and reckless that there is no words for it.
Also wiping out this "bathroom" mail server with BleachKit is a very
suspicious activity for any person under investigation.
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the
server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from
it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong,
that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with
legal requests to hand over data.
...The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would
pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because
of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck,
one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled
document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these
"Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's
spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required
to report her if she was in my office.
...Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years
to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the
sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search
to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.
...I like how the argument has devolved here to "If Bush did it, then
it's ok". PopeRatzo, is Dubya really your moral compass? Your guiding light?
...Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from
tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know
of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal
emails, except Clinton.
https://www.wired.com/2009/12/...
[wired.com] another source
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] , another
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
[npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.
...My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server
was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the
State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during
her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would
run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing
the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration
while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that
her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook
and figured she would show them how it's done.
...1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it
was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon
taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government
branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts)
and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the
state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist
(perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files
were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no
clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only
about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of
tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga
or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played
ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance
against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased
tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?
One law for the king another for me. If any of the scandals went to
a jury instead of being swept under the rug, we might have judgements. If
I did what Clinton did with information security I would be in jail. If
I did that with federal records I would do time as well!
At least three of Hillary Clinton's top aides – including one with ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood – used emails hosted on Clinton's private server while she was secretary of state,
according to several reports.
At a news conference Tuesday at the U.N., Clinton directly addressed media about the
revelation that she conducted her business as secretary of state using a private email account
instead of the secure and archived government system.
She
acknowledged she deleted thousands of personal emails and said she turned over hard copies of
messages to the State Department that she deemed to be work related.
But Clinton apparently wasn't the only one at the State Department using private email.
Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes told Fox News, "Two of Hillary Clinton's top
aides used personal email while they were employed at the State Department."
Hayes specifically named Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, who served as
Clinton's longtime deputy chief of staff. Abedin and Clinton worked closely together for
nearly 20 years.
"The State Department has evidence of this," he said.
In another report, the gossip website Gawker claimed both Abedin and Phillippe Reines,
Clinton's communications strategist, used the private email addresses.
Abedin's emails would be of particular interest because she has known ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood – a group that's bent on "destroying Western civilization from within" – and other
Islamic supremacists.
Hayes said, "The question, I think becomes: Were they emailing with Hillary Clinton from
their personal email addresses to her personal email address about State Department business,
about Benghazi, including sensitive classified information?
"Those are questions that I think (Rep.) Trey Gowdy and the House Benghazi Committee is
going to want to look at very carefully."
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the State Department seeking
all emails from 2009 to 2013 between Clinton, Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of Muslim
Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi.
"Now we know why the State Department didn't want to respond to our specific request for
Hillary Clinton's and Huma Abedin's communications," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said
in a statement. "The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn't and
wouldn't search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit
shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn't just about domestic politics but has
significant foreign policy implications."
Abedin and Clinton worked closely together for nearly 20 years.
As WND has
extensively reported
, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic supremacist connections not only
extend to Abedin's mother and father, who are both deeply tied to al-Qaida fronts, but to
Abedin herself.
Major news media profiles of Abedin report she was born of Pakistani and Indian parents,
without delving much further into her family's history.
As
WND
reported
, a manifesto commissioned by the ruling Saudi Arabian monarchy places the work of
an institute that employed Abedin at the forefront of a grand plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim
minorities to transform America into a Saudi-style Islamic state, according to Arabic-language
researcher Walid Shoebat.
Abedin
was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the
Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her late father and
currently directed by her mother – is backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic
organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
The 2002 Saudi manifesto shows that "Muslim Minority Affairs" – the mobilizing of Muslim
communities in the U.S. to spread Islam instead of assimilating into the population – is a key
strategy in an ongoing effort to establish Islamic rule in America and a global Shariah, or
Islamic law, "in our modern times."
WND reported
Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was
identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence
during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation.
At
her father's Saudi-financed Islamic think tank,
WND
reported
, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of financing
al-Qaida fronts.
Naseef is deeply connected to the Abedin family.
WND was first to report
Huma's mother,
Saleha Abedin, was the official representative of Naseef's terror-stained Muslim World League
in the 1990s.
Shoebat previously reported that as one of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood, the de
facto female version of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saleha Abedin served alongside Nagla Ali
Mahmoud, the wife of Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's now ousted president.
Saleha Abedin and Morsi's wife both were members of the Sisterhood's Guidance Bureau,
Shoebat found
.
Huma worked with al-Qaida front man
Abdullah Omar Naseef is secretary-general of the Muslim World League, an Islamic charity
known to have spawned terrorist groups, including one declared by the U.S. government to be an
official al-Qaida front.
The institute founded by Huma Abedin's father reportedly was a quiet, but active, supporter
of Naseef.
The institute bills itself as "the only scholarly institution dedicated to the systematic
study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world."
Huma
served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs's editorial board from 2002 to 2008.
Documents obtained by Shoebat revealed that Naseef served on the board with Huma from at
least December 2002 to December 2003.
Naseef's sudden departure from the board in December 2003 coincides with the time at which
various charities led by Naseef's Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts
worldwide, including by the U.S. and U.N.
The MWL, founded in Mecca in 1962, bills itself as one of the largest Islamic
non-governmental organizations.
But according to U.S. government documents and testimony from the charity's own officials,
it is heavily financed by the Saudi government.
The MWL has been accused of terrorist ties, as have its various offshoots, including the
International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, which was declared by the
U.S. and U.N. as a terror financing front.
Indeed, the Treasury Department, in a September 2004 press release, alleged Al Haramain had
"direct links" with Osama bin Laden. The group is now banned worldwide by U.N. Security
Council Committee resolution 1267.
There long have been accusations that the IIRO and MWL also repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In 1993, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most
important charity fronts.
An Anti-Defamation League profile of the MWL accuses the group of promulgating a
"fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities
and affiliated organizations."
"Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam," the profile
states, "and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to
terror-related activity."
In
2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL's donations, invariably,
are "a blizzard of Wahhabist literature."
"Critics argue that Wahhabism's more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of
rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist
groups around the world," the report continued.
An Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested in Florida in 1990
on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At
the time he was accused of serving bin Laden, he also reportedly worked for the Pakistani
branch of the MWL.
The MWL in 1988 founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, developing chapters in about 50
countries, including for a time in Oregon until it was designated a terrorist organization.
In
the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in
Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
The U.S. Treasury designated Al Haramain's offices in Kenya and Tanzania as sponsors of
terrorism for their role in planning and funding the 1998 bombings of two American embassies
in East Africa. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it "was used as a
staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings."
The New York Times reported in 2003 that Al Haramain had provided funds to the Indonesian
terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which was responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings that killed
202 people. The Indonesia office was later designated a terrorist entity by the Treasury.
In February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all Al Haramain's financial assets
pending an investigation, leading the Saudi government to disband the charity and fold it into
another group, the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.
In September 2004, the U.S. designated Al-Haramain a terrorist organization.
In June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire
Al-Haramain organization worldwide
Bin Laden's brother-in-law
In August 2006, the Treasury Department also designated the Philippine and Indonesian
branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO as terrorist entities "for facilitating fundraising for
al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups."
The Treasury Department added: "Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO
official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his
position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of
supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors
in the Middle East who support extremist causes."
In the 1980s, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law, ran the Philippines
offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to Manila-based plots to target the pope and U.S.
airlines.
The IIRO has also been accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant
bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.
The New York Post reported the families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO
and other Muslim organizations for having "played key roles in laundering of funds to the
terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings" and for having been involved in the
"financing and 'aiding and abetting' of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."
'Saudi government front'
In a court case in Canada, Arafat El-Asahi, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the
MWL, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.
Stated El-Asahi: "The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully
government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I
am an employee of that government.
"Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are
controlled in all our activities and plans by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in
mind, please," he said.
Despite its offshoots being implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never
designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. Many have speculated the U.S. has
been trying to not embarrass the Saudi government.
Saleha Abedin has been quoted in numerous press accounts as both representing the MWL and
serving as a delegate for the charity.
In 1995, for example, the Washington Times reported on a United Nations-arranged women's
conference in Beijing that called on governments throughout the world to give women
statistical equality with men in the workplace.
The report quoted Saleha Abedin, who attended the conference as a delegate, as "also
representing the Muslim World League based in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim NGO Caucus."
The U.N.'s website references a report in the run-up to the Beijing conference that also
lists Abedin as representing the MWL at the event.
The website posted an article from the now defunct United States Information Agency quoting
Abedin and reporting she attended the Beijing conference as "a delegate of the Muslim World
League and member of the Muslim Women's NGO caucus."
In the article, Abedin was listed under a shorter name, "Dr. Saleha Mahmoud, director of
the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs."
WND confirmed the individual listed is Huma Abedin's mother. The reports misspelled part of
Abedin's name. Her full professional name is at times listed as Saleha Mahmood Abedin S.
Saleha Mahmood formerly directed the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in the U.K. and
served as a delegate for the Muslim World League, an Islamic fundamentalist group Osama bin
Laden reportedly told an associate was one of his most important charity fronts.
In February 2010, Clinton spoke at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where
Abedin was an associate professor of sociology at the time.
Clinton, after she was introduced by Abedin, praised the work of the terror-tied professor.
"I have to say a special word about Dr. Saleha Abedin," Clinton said. "You heard her
present the very exciting partnerships that have been pioneered between colleges and
universities in the United States and this college. And it is pioneering work to create these
kinds of relationships.
"But I have to confess something that Dr. Abedin did not," Clinton continued, "and that is
that I have almost a familial bond with this college. Dr. Abedin's daughter, one of her three
daughters, is my deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, who started to work for me when she was a
student at George Washington University in Washington, D.C."
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/muslim-brotherhood-princess-used-clinton-email-server/#jU3DUhHxWVbOpRBH.99
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a
bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to
spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?
"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.
Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one
alone. Of course there are others….
*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***
I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this
claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in
my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why
did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the
Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release
her meeting schedules until after the election?
Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale.
This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan
of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria.
And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off
Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.
"... 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.
"... This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for him to throw a rock through these people's collective window. ..."
What do Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio, Magic Johnson and Jimmy Buffett all
have in common? They're with her.
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, buoyed by rising poll numbers and a sputtering
Donald Trump campaign, are using August to raise tens of millions of dollars
in cash before the fall sprint.
Clinton will embark on a three-day, eight-fundraiser trip to California
next week, headlining a mix of star studded events with tech icons, athletes
and movie stars.
On Monday, August 22, Clinton will headline a top dollar fundraiser at
the Beverly Hills home of Cheryl and Haim Saban, the billionaire owner of
Univision and one of Clinton's wealthiest backers.
Clinton and her aides will then head down the street to another fundraiser
at the Beverly Hills home of Hall of Fame basketball player and businessman
Magic Johnson. That event, which according to Clinton donors in California
is expected to raise millions of dollars, will also be hosted by Willow
Bay and Bob Iger, the CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and Marilyn and Jeffrey
Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation.
The next day, Clinton will headline two events in Laguna Beach, including
a $33,400-per-person event hosted by Stephen Cloobeck, the CEO of Diamond
Resorts.
Later in the day, according to invites obtained by CNN, Clinton will
headline a fundraiser at the home of Leonardo DiCaprio, the Oscar-winning
actor known for his roles in Titanic, The Revenant and The Wolf of Wall
Street.
Scooter Braun, the agent that discovered Justin Beiber, and Tobey Maguire,
the actor known for his roles in the Spider-Man series, will also host the
star-studded event.
Sounds like fun for those celebrities and rich people, flooding the Democratic
Party nominee's coffers with campaign cash. Meanwhile, here in flood-ravaged
Louisiana, preliminary estimates claim that as many as 110,000 people lost their
homes (or at least suffered enormous damage to them),
suffering nearly $21 billion in losses.
Obama golfs with celebrities, Hillary parties with them and takes their cash.
This should not be forgotten. These are the oligarchs who rule us. It's despicable.
Do not believe for one second that there's any reason why Hillary Clinton cannot
get here. Donald Trump got here, spent a few hours, then left. So could she,
if she wanted to. But she would di$appoint her donor$.
This who Hillary Clinton is. It's all about money and access. You know
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I absolutely can see why people would vote for
him to throw a rock through these people's collective window.
You might want to study up. (Actually, that could be said to you on many,
many issues.) Perjury is lying on a point that is "material" to the case.
The judge in the Paula Jones lawsuit ruled that Bill's relationship with
Monica was not material to it, hence, no perjury.
But yeah, if it had been perjury, of course it's every bit as
bad as a president ordering federal agencies to break the law and obstruct
a criminal investigation in order to cover up his subordinates' illegal
eavesdropping on political opponents. Yep. Sure is.
Re: Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of both. That, not 'sex with an intern'
is why he was impeached.
In what way was Bill Clinton guilty of "Obstruction of justice"? I am
unaware of any criminal investigation he interfered in.
Also, Clinton was not even guilty of perjury in a the purely legal sense
of the term, since the lies he told (yes, they were lies) were not germane
to the matter on which he was testifying. A perjury charge requires that
to be true.
Sorry, should have acknowledged @Chris 1 on this as well:
And the denial continues in denying that there's anything anyone
can do, so let's do nothing. If you lived your moral life this way you'd
be a wreck.
It's a classic example of the "Futility" argument. Seriously, Albert
O. Hirschman's book explains a vast amount of conservative rhetoric. Here's
the Amazon link:
Another of his books, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (see further link
on that Amazon page), is also important and could helpfully explain, for
instance, different responses to the Catholic abuse scandals.
I agree that "political pundits, talk radio hosts, blog writers and blog
commenters who are complaining about a lack of tweets and visits" are "pathetic,
whiny, insecure, self-absorbed and a host of other bad things." I also agree
that nobody should be questioning the motives of people who are in the midst
of mucking out their homes, no matter what they are saying.
If President Obama is smart, he will give very little in the way of speeches,
or impromptu talks. He will simply ask as many people as possible, what
do you need, what is still lacking, what can we do to help you? If he talks
to the press, he will begin by saying "There are times when a visit from
the President of the United States is not going to make things better, and
might even distract from essential work. I came as soon as people on the
ground told me it would be acceptable, and would do more good than harm."
The perjury for which Clinton was had nothing to do with the Paula Jones
suit (a civil case in a state court, presided over by a former Clinton student).
He was impeached for lying to a federal grand jury. Same goes for the obstruction
of justice charge, nothing to do with Paula Jones or civil cases, everything
to do with the Federal investigation of Clinton's doings.
I was out of the country, in Bosnia in fact, at the time, so my ignorance
is excusable. My failing to check up the 'facts' presented by a Lefty isn't.
"... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an
indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance
of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that
justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant
twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
"... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S.
"leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This
rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting
U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
"... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. ..."
"... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
"... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if
that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't
pander to them. ..."
"... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility." ..."
"... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
"... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't
get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3%
of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more
important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31,
2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent
war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
"... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who
consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony,
especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running
a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions
on the rest of the world. ..."
"... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress
Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the
Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
"... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
"... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this
kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the
presidency anymore. ..."
"... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary
Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
"... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it
intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality.
I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions.
To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.
..."
"... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something.
Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
"... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf
on this stuff. ..."
"... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the
Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because
we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
Hillary Clinton's
speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was
billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy
and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening
to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to
present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very
impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory
from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton
to be a poor messenger, or both.
The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a
few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are
an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable
nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American
exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That
is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's
rhetoric means today.
Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That
would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of
U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant
part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the
former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance
of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S.
will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S.
will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.
Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican
wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must
lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this.
This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict
and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.
At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics."
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and
most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not
healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows
the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible
thing to say.
"At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.'
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed
and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."
That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus
is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge
from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should
not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in
the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.
Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes.
But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many
faults, didn't pander to them.
Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility."
Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her.
She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.
Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience.
She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice
for President.
She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not
surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.
Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects
of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.
If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans
who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S.
hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign
as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life
and death decisions on the rest of the world.
When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S.
to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since
it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.
Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and
transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously
love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times.
How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went
full Neocon.
What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:
1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy
Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who
doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal
pique.
OR
2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to
avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will
CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.
I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president,
but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want
Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy,
it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation
This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact
same sentence.
Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain
I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is
the only Neocon portal that I bother with.
If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start
it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their
own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens
my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually
studying the Russians.
Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start
something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone
deaf on this stuff.
The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly
for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong
thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
"... "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he - because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense". ..."
"... Prosecutorial discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature of any dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of "a nation of men, not of laws". ..."
"... Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system" ..."
"... Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper' was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she had no intention to remove classification markings" ..."
"... issues sending secure fax" ..."
"... They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" ..."
"... "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information". ..."
"... The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up ..."
"... That alone proves the Obama Administration's 'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce ..."
"... the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House. ..."
The famous judge Jed Rakoff
has accurately and succinctly
said that, in the American criminal 'justice' system, since 1980 and especially after 2000, and
most especially after 2010, "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion
that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal
parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he
- because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the
federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever
charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense".
If an Administration wants to be merely pretending an 'investigation', it's easy: identify, as
the topic for the alleged 'investigation', not the criminal laws that indisputably describe what
the suspect can clearly be proven to have done, but instead criminal laws that don't. Prosecutorial
discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature
of any
dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are
above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of
"a nation
of men, not of laws".
But, different people focus on different aspects of it.
Conservatives notice it in Clinton's case because she was not prosecuted.
Progressives notice it in Clinton's case because other people (ones without the clout) who did
what she did (but only less of it), have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for it. The result,
either way, is
dictatorship , regardless of anyone's particular perspective on the matter. Calling a nation
like that a 'democracy' is to strip "democracy" of its basic meaning - it is foolishness. Such a
nation is
an aristocracy, otherwise called an "oligarchy". That's the opposite of a democracy (even if
it's set up so as to pretend to be a democracy).
2: The FBI chose to believe her allegations, instead of to investigate or challenge them.
For example: On page 4 of
the FBI's record of their interview with Hillary dated 2 July 2016 , they noted: " Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system"
. But they already had seen
this email . So,
they asked her about that specific one: " Clinton stated she did not remember the email
specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying
marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper'
was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed
this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking
Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she
had no intention to remove classification markings" .
Look at the email
: is her statement about it - that " issues sending secure fax" had nothing
to do with the illegality of sending classified U.S. Government information over a non-secured, even
privatized, system - even credible? Is the implication by Clinton's remark, that changing the letterhead
and removing the document'a classified stamp, would solve the problem that Jake Sullivan - a highly
skilled attorney himself - had brought to her attention, even credible? Well, if so, then wouldn't
the FBI have asked Sullivan what he was referring to when his email to Clinton said " They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" .
The FBI provided no indication that there was any such follow-up, at all. They could have plea-bargained
with Sullivan, to get him to testify first, so that his testimony could be used in questioning of
her, but they seem not to have been interested in doing any such thing. They believed what she said
(even though it made no sense as a response to the problem that Sullivan had just brought to her
attention: the problem that emailing to her this information would violate several federal criminal
statutes.
Clinton, in other words, didn't really care about the legality. And, apparently, neither did the
FBI. Her email in response to Sullivan's said simply: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper
w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but
wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information".
In other words: she was instructing her advisor: hide the fact that it's classified information,
so that when I receive it, there will be no indication on it that what was sent to me is classified
information.
3:
The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up:
obtaining plea-deals with subordinates, requiring them to cooperate, answer questions and
not to plead the Fifth Amendment (not to refuse to answer) . (In Hillary's case, the Obama Administration
actually did plea-deals in which they allowed the person who was supposed to answer all questions,
to plea the Fifth Amendment to all questions instead. This is allowed only when the government doesn't
want to prosecute the higher-up - which in this case was Clinton. That alone proves the Obama Administration's
'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce.)
A plea-deal isn't a Constitutional process:
Jed Rakoff's article explained why it's not. The process is informal, but nowadays it's used
in more than 97% of cases in which charges are brought, and in more than 99% of all cases (including
the 92% of cases that are simply dropped without any charges being brought). That's the main reason
why nowadays "the prosecutor has all the power". Well, the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama
Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
"... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
"... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
"... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost
historical overview…
1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism
(the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)
2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e.
Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism,
liberalism, and fascism)
3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist
critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older
liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption
4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist
and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues
are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges
was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism
In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who
simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite
frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments
like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American,
even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh
of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local
government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are
asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions
like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media
as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This
is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue
governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who
no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation
delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is
an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and
Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political
whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable
anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage
in regulatory evasion and reform.
"... 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.
"... Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ..."
"... The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance. ..."
"... Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later. ..."
"... it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays. ..."
nderstand the dynamics of far-right extremism without understanding far-right extremists? Probably
not; it seems clear we need to have a much more "micro" understanding of the actors than we currently
have if we are to understand these movements so antithetical to the values of liberal democracy.
And yet there isn't much of a literature on this subject.
An important exception is a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
, curated by Kathleen Blee (
link ). This volume brings
together several ethnographic studies of extremist groups, and it makes for very interesting reading.
Kathleen Blee is a pioneer in this field and is the author of
Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (2002). She writes in Inside Organized
Racism :
Intense, activist racism typically does not arise on its own; it is learned in racist groups
. These groups promote ideas radically different from the racist attitudes held by many whites.
They teach a complex and contradictory mix of hatred for enemies, belief in conspiracies, and
allegiance to an imaginary unified race of "Aryans." (3)
One of Blee's key contributions has been to highlight the increasingly important and independent
role played by women in right-wing extremist movements in the United States and Europe.
The JCE issue includes valuable studies of right-wing extremist groups in India, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. And each of the essays is well worth reading, including especially
Blee's good introduction. Here is the table of contents:
Key questions concerning the mechanisms of mobilization arise in almost all the essays. What are
the mechanisms through which new adherents are recruited? What psychological and emotional mechanisms
are in play that keep loyalists involved in the movement? Contributors to this volume find a highly
heterogeneous set of circumstances leading to extremist activism. Blee argues that an internalist
approach is needed to allow us to have a more nuanced understanding of the social and personal
dynamics of extremist movements. What she means by externalist here is the idea that there
are societal forces and "risk factors" that contribute to the emergence of hate and racism within
a population, and that these factors can be studied in a general way. An internalist approach, by
contrast, aims at discovering the motives and causes of extremist engagement through study of the
actors themselves, within specific social circumstances.
But it is problematic to use data garnered in externalist studies to draw conclusions about micromobilization
since it is not possible to infer the motivations of activists from the external conditions in
which the group emerged. Because people are drawn to far-right movements for a variety of reasons
that have little connection to political ideology (Blee 2002)-including a search for community,
affirmation of masculinity, and personal loyalties- what motivates someone to join an anti-immigrant
group, for example, might-or might not-be animus toward immigrants. (120)
Based on interviews, participant-observation, and life-history methods, contributors find a mix of
factors leading to the choice of extremist involvement: adolescent hyper-masculinity, a desire to
belong, a history of bullying and abuse, as well as social exposure to adult hate activists. But
this work is more difficult than many other kinds of ethnographic research because of the secrecy,
suspiciousness, and danger associated with these kinds of activism:
Close-up or "internalist" studies of far-right movements can provide a better understanding of
the workings of far-right groups and the beliefs and motivations of their activists and supporters,
but such studies are rare because data from interviews with members, observations of group activities,
and internal documents are difficult to obtain.... Few scholars want to invest the considerable
time or to establish the rapport necessary for close-up studies of those they regard as inexplicable
and repugnant, in addition to dangerous and difficult. Yet, as the articles in this volume demonstrate,
internalist studies of the far right can reveal otherwise obscured and important features of extreme
rightist political mobilization. (121-122)
A few snippets will give some flavor of the volume. Here is Michael Kimmel's description
of some of the young men and boys attracted to the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden:
Insecure and lonely at twelve years old, Edward started hanging out with skinheads because he
"moved to a new town, knew nobody, and needed friends." Equally lonely and utterly alienated from
his distant father, Pelle met an older skinhead who took him under his wing and became a sort
of mentor. Pelle was a "street hooligan" hanging out in street gangs, brawling and drinking with
other gangs. "My group actually looked down on the neo-Nazis," he says, because "they weren't
real fighters." "All the guys had an insecure role as a man," says Robert. "They were all asking
'who am I?'" ...
Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves
as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would
feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one
ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society,
you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ...
For others, it was a sense of alienation from family and especially the desire to rebel against
their fathers. "Grown-ups often forget an important component of Swedish racism, the emotional
conviction," says Jonas Hallen (2000). "If you have been beaten, threatened, and stolen from,
you won't listen to facts and numbers."(209-210)
Here is Meera Sehgal's description of far-right Hindu nationalist training camps for
young girls in India:
The overall atmosphere of this camp and the Samiti's camps in general was rigid and authoritarian,
with a strong emphasis on discipline. ... A number of girls fell ill with diarrhea, exhaustion,
and heat stroke. Every day at least five to ten girls could be seen crying, wanting to go home.
They pleaded with their city's local Samiti leaders, camp instructors, and organizers to be allowed
to call their parents, but were not allowed to do so. ... Neither students nor instructors were
allowed to get sufficient rest or decent food.
The training was at a frenetic pace in physically trying conditions. Participants were kept
awake and physically and mentally engaged from dawn to late night. Approximately four hours a
day were devoted to physical training; five hours to ideological indoctrination through lectures,
group discussions, and rote memorization; and two hours to indoctrination through cultural programming
like songs, stories, plays, jokes, and skits. Many girls and women were consequently soon physically
exhausted, and yet were forced to continue. The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and
food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since
time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance.
Indoctrination, which was the Samiti's first priority, ranged from classroom lectures and small
and large group discussions led by different instructors, to nightly cultural programs where skits,
storytelling, songs, and chants were taught by the instructors and seasoned activists, based on
the lives of various "Hindu" women, both mythical and historical. (170)
And here is Fabian Virchow's description of the emotional power of music and spectacle
at a neo-Nazi rally in Germany:
Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their
successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy
to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon
attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew
a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads
indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience,
shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but
one that switched into brutality a few moments later.
The aggression of White Power music is evident in the messages of its songs, which are either
confessing, demonstrating self-assertion against what is perceived as totally hostile surroundings,
or requesting action (Meyer 1995). Using Heavy Metal or Oi Punk as its musical basis, White Power
music not only attracts those who see themselves as part of the same political movement as the
musicians, but also serves as one of the most important tools for recruiting new adherents to
the politics of the far right (Dornbusch and Raabe 2002).
Since the festival I visited takes place only once a year, and because performances of White
Power bands are organized clandestinely in most cases and are often disrupted by the police, the
far-right movement needs additional events to shape and sustain its collective identity. As the
far right and the NPD and neo-Nazi groupuscules in particular regard themselves as a "movement
of action," it is no surprise that rallies play an important role in this effort. (151)
Each of these essays is based on first-hand observation and interaction, and they give some insight
into the psychological forces playing on the participants as well as the mobilizational strategies
used by the leaders of these kinds of movements. The articles published here offer a good cross-section
of the ways in which ethnographic methods can be brought to bear on the phenomenon of extremist right-wing
activism. And because the studies are drawn from five quite different national contexts (Sweden,
Germany, Netherlands, India, France), it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and
dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance
and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany,
Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood,
and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal
to them, recurs in several of the essays.
Along with KA Kreasap, Kathleen Blee is also the author of a 2010 review article on right-wing
extremist movements in Annual Reviews of Sociology (
link ). These are the kinds of hate-based organizations and activists tracked by the Southern
Poverty Law Center (
link ), and that seem to be more visible than ever before during the current presidential campaign.
The essay pays attention to the question of the motivations and "risk factors" that lead people to
join right-wing movements. Blee and Kreasap argue that the motivations and circumstances of mobilization
into right-wing organizations are substantially more heterogeneous than a simple story leading from
racist attitudes to racist mobilization would suggest. They argue that antecedent racist ideology
is indeed a factor, but that music, culture, social media, and continent social networks also play
significant causal roles.
"... Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. ..."
"... Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. ..."
"... The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. ..."
Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous
contemporary democracies around the world. The implications of this political process are deeply
challenging to the values of liberal democracy. We need to try to understand these developments.
(Peter Merkl's research on European right-wing extremism is very helpful here;
Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century .)
One plausible approach to trying to understand the dynamics of this turn to the far right is to
consider relevantly similar historical examples. A very interesting study on the history of Austria's
right-wing extremism between the wars was published recently by Janek Wasserman,
Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918-1938 .
Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism,
and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy
and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational
institutions. Here is how Wasserman describes the content of ultra-conservative philosophy and
ideology in inter-war Vienna:
The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered
on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment
(and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic
conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention.
(6)
This climate was highly inhospitable towards ideas and values from progressive thinkers. Wasserman
describes the intellectual and cultural climate of Vienna in these terms:
At the turn of the century, Austria was one of the most culturally conservative nations in Europe.
The advocacy of avant-garde scientific theories therefore put the First Vienna Circle- and its
intellectual forbears- under pressure. Ultimately, it left them in marginal positions until several
years after the Great War. In the wake of the Wahrmund affair, discussed in chapter 1, intellectuals
advocating secularist, rationalist, or liberal views faced a hostile academic landscape.
Ernst Mach, for example, was an intellectual outsider at the University of Vienna from 1895
until his death in 1916. Always supportive of socialist causes, he left a portion of his estate
to the Social Democrats in his last will and testament. His theories of sensationalism and radical
empiricism were challenged on all sides, most notably by his successor Ludwig Boltzmann. His students,
among them David Josef Bach and Friedrich Adler, either had to leave the country to find appointments
or give up academics altogether. Unable to find positions in Vienna, Frank moved to Prague and
Neurath to Heidelberg. Hahn did not receive a position until after the war. The First Vienna Circle
disbanded because of a lack of opportunity at home. (110-111)
The whole thing smells to high heaven. The only reason to trust that there are no direct quid
pro quos is, perversely, that there are so many donations and so many speeches and interactions
that they all begin to seem normal.
Yes, there may be smoke and no fire, in the legal sense, but let us not pretend there are no
issues here.
I don't know if relying on the same people over time is bad or loopy or what. I know that old
friends are the best friends, so this does not bother me so much.
I will add, which is almost never pointed out, that while the Clintons really are money grubbers
(see them stealing White House silverware and HRC unbelievably stupidly giving all those Goldman
Sachs talks for money she did not need and for which she should have known she would be criticized
while running, which Bernie certainly did plenty, although somehow Trump has so far laid off that),
the Clintons have in fact publicly released 33 years of their tax returns right up to the latest
ones. They may be money grubbers, but it is pretty much all out there to see.
... ...
Beverly Mann
August 30, 2016 5:05 pm
What bothers me–what strikes me as weird–is the extent to which she relies on Abedin, especially,
but also Mills and a few others. They're like human security blanket, without which she can't
function, it appears.
And: Oooooh, yeah, Trump's hiding not just something but a lot of things. Believe me.
Gage Skidmore / Flickr
In accepting the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto to fly to Mexico City, the
Donald was taking a major risk.
Yet it was a bold and decisive move, and it paid off in
what was the best day of Donald Trump's campaign.
Standing beside Nieto, graciously complimenting him and speaking warmly of Mexico and
its people, Trump looked like a president. And the Mexican president treated him like one,
even as Trump restated the basic elements of his immigration policy, including the border
wall.
The gnashing of teeth up at the
New York Times
testifies to Trump's triumph:
"Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug
smugglers, and trade hustlers. … But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Pena Nieto
treated him like a visiting head of state … with side-by-side lecterns and words of
deferential mush."
As I wrote in August, Trump "must convince the nation … he is an acceptable, indeed, a
preferable alternative" to Hillary Clinton, whom the nation does not want.
In Mexico City, Trump did that.
He reassured
voters who are leaning toward him that he can be president. As for those who are
apprehensive about his temperament, they saw reassurance.
For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump
are conceding his diplomatic coup.
"Trump achieved his purpose," said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. "He looked
serene, firm, presidential." Our "humiliation is now complete," tweeted an anchorman at
Televisa.
President Nieto's invitation to Trump "was the biggest stupidity in the history of the
Mexican presidency," said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.
Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this
upset with an American.
Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.
When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall,
even if "they don't know it yet."
Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will
accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal
immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to
citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.
Trump's stance in Mexico City and Phoenix reveals that there is no turning back. The die
is cast. He is betting the election on his belief that the American people prefer his
stands to Clinton's call for amnesty.
A core principle enunciated by Trump in Phoenix appears to be a guiding light behind his
immigration policy.
"Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally
has simply spent too much time Washington. … There is only one core issue in the
immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. … Nothing even
comes a close second."
The "well-being of the American people" may be the yardstick by which U.S. policies will
be measured in a Trump presidency. This is also applicable to Trump's stand on trade and
foreign policy.
Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal, and TPP advance the "well-being
of the American people"? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and
corporate elites?
Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H.W. Bush gives you the answer.
Which of the military interventions and foreign wars from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq
to Libya to Yemen to Syria served the "well-being of the American people"?
Are the American people well-served by commitments in perpetuity to 60- and 65-year-old
treaties to wage war on Russia and China on behalf of scores of nations across Eurasia,
most of which have been free riders on U.S. defense for decades?
Trump's "core issue" might be called
Americanism.
Whatever the outcome of this election, these concerns are not going away. For they have
arisen out of a deeply dissatisfied and angry electorate that is alienated from the elites
both parties.
Indeed, alienation explains the endurance of Trump, despite his recent difficulties.
Americans want change, and he alone offers it.
In the last two weeks, Trump has seen a slow rise in the polls, matched by a perceptible
decline in support for Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll now has Trump at 40, with Clinton
slipping to 39.
This race is now Trump's to win or lose. For he alone brings a fresh perspective to
policies that have stood stagnant under both parties.
And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy,
wonkish, scripted, and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully
trust.
Which is why the country seems to be looking, again, to Trump, to show them that they
will not be making a big mistake if they elect him.
If Donald Trump can continue to show America what he did in Mexico City, that he can be
presidential, he may just become president.
"... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
"... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
"... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
"... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism. ..."
"... British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now. ..."
"... TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose. ..."
"... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
"... It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals. ..."
"... The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose? ..."
"... All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing. ..."
"... Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. ..."
"... What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%. ..."
"... Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton. ..."
"... So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are. ..."
"... And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before. ..."
"... Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure... ..."
"... I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals. ..."
"... Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it? ..."
"... They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". ..."
"... This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump. ..."
"... Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches? ..."
"... The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
"... Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. ..."
"... Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people. ..."
"... You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend. ..."
"... I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
"... I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11. ..."
"... And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible. ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims
....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in
amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and
large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take
care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently
overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times
columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with
this imaginary person's responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally
consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement,
they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable
of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican
party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
... ... ...
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall
along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the
debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the
government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!"
he marveled – another true fact, a
legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the
critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy
lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
... ... ...
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class,
which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic
power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require
explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and
no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going
around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning
plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey,
Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since
the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence
of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North
Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what
it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about
the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck
you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information".
His information about all of them losing their jobs.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate
with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair,
with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought
the rest of America.
Advertisement
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company
from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic
outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but
many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces
our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked
your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters,
instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is
the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a
political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters
in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified
Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect
of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned,
"immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one
concern: "good jobs / the economy."
"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to
me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard
all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that
their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession,
that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts
it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist,
not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about
trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal
Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."
"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's
representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal,
and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance
the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties –
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune
of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative
securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured,
had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen
to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe
outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts
and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies
have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart.
Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."
Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building
slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will
be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we
liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions,
for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their
twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude
and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military,
following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the
service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our
individual services and be examples within our communities.
To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.
You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your
skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it
great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished
miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be
proud of yourselves.
You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades
died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have
seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation
accepts hate and intolerance.
We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country.
Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's
destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which
depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals
to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.
Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance
and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things,
but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.
Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government,
whether it is county, city, state or nation.
Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought.
Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know
what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you
give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.
Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are
counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.
Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!
J.M. WAINWRIGHT
General, U.S. Army
Commanding
Albert Matchett
Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians
have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent And can not understand why sales
turnovers keeps going down.
No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made
can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.
matt88008
The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary
Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic,
his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal,
prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!
Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant
snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist
Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington
D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.
Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by
the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades
the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.
Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching
how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters.
Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.
Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look
what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want
protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism.
The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They
honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness.
I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to
vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take
off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.
British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine
and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to
the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto
Chinese capitalism now.
British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the
opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.
TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages
and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses
agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified
workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.
If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to
pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated
from the Labour party.
To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital
. If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now
threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous
expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too
many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between
the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.
I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of
different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another
trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have
to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.
I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated
and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs
on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders'
base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people
tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls
-- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.
Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class
base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much
money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.
What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters
choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter
than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests
and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony
is beyond comprehension.
If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly,
is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having
a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past
four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning.
She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid
-- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.
Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while
pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both
Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.
One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have
your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are
the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment)
rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write
policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets,
bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.
Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!
Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just
hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but
ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to
the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported
them during the election.
As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of
a country that they entered illegally in the first place?
This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites).
We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen
as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking
some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language,
religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.
What a brilliant article. It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying
Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust
so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole
world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump
is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening
to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back
in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept
warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'.. The working
class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians
in both the US and Australia.
Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait
a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.
Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...
However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive
The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second
amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working
lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated
course of events. What would an American choose?
The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand
why they can't connect with them. This is another non-story.
All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge
and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people
moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.
Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without
the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires
a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern
how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political
parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary
Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump
is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
"We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with
racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade,
as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T
in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working
class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying
safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment
"liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass
Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of
useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will
be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything.
Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to
see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his
payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company
he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care
bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person
only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment
and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible.
He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly
the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance,
but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and
paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating,
blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out
all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and
has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders
and oligarchy's bidding.
Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain
type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they
could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political
class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting
that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the
xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters
at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens
and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY
about himself - the classic demagogue.
Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control'
a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case
in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up
the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone
bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.
As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone
supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult.
Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head
of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully
in the 1930s and 40s.
Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does
not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long
way towards prosperity.
Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and
hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the
Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately.
The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their
bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help
US because they don't have to and they don't want to.
Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping
create a vibrant middle class.
What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living,
as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends
and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother
white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram
of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.
I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?
Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions,
relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there,
but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night
on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering
and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take
considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional
states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity
of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize
the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong
is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately
have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this
reluctance too.
Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well
as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional
assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything
feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi
river we're about to pass into."
So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working
class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if
not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American,
Hispanics, or undocumented workers.
Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white
working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to
$14 an hour?
Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches.
Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than
Clinton.
So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the
Democratis really are.
And blah blah blah... Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.
And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security
slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to
mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through
this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like
never before.
Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they
even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved!
And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...
I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of
which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control
this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican
party has grown a set of morals.
The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message? One
thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.
"But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the
world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil
Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really
hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete
with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15
Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama
is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving
the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might
have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class
seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots
is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.
The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the
election.
What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question
is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing.
At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.
The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing
of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an
initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed
as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing
business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.
When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities,
the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when
people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not
sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.
On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses,
demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase
more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.
What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component
of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water
and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities,
private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide
tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market,
after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide
goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both
jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents,
keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell
their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.
In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market
(and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.
Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes
time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting
them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation
tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which
is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses
in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the
currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you
import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell
and export. Thus there is a natural balance.
But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency
value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money
and the currency value will stay the same.
Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within
a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.
Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive
stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.
Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable
goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources,
all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out
buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our
own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In
our nation's own interest.
Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble
Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she
overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses
the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying
things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running
on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?
Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters
are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To
make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad
shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us
from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.
Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but
when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation
for fraud.
To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life
and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here
and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's
ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they
vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.
This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent
or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was
fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.
Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend
Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers
living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as
he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system
has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends
Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from
a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West
in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They
flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for
themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly
how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now
chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer.
Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics.
Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1%
on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize,
the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially
a feature of their economic model.
Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful
critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and
Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's
just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.
The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding
it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans
after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for
King Birther?
Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique;
Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with
race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills
that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do.
Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials
sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they
feel safe about endorsing.
One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular
order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.
The Anti-Trump Brigade
GOP
Tea Party
Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
DC media from TV to internet
Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.
One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media
outlets.
Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting
Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.
The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet
called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat
candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?
Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability
to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower
middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars.
Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles?
Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
Redonfire,
When I tell one of my sons that globalisation has shafted the european working an d middle class,
he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class"
I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the
last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white
folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely
really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most
of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having
to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.
I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black
economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump
is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?
The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working
classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing
to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a
while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class
and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all.
Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the
people's party back to the margins!
This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother
and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about
him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game
of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.
Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do
little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced
more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely
to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.
He wants to abolish corporate tax entirely, without saying where the money will come from
instead (that means you).
He wants to cut spending on education. But hasn't said if that's because he wants someone
else to do the job, or because he wants a stupid electorate. The Federal Government spends
1.3% of it's budget on education - how much can actually be saved and doesn't the 4.3% spent
on national debt interest indicate somewhere where more can be saved ?
He opposes democracy in the Middle East & prefers the stability of dictators (despite the
chaos that existed in the US, right after independence).
He wants more sanctions on Iran - proving his detachment from reality. The Iran nuclear
deal was pragmatic. It was agreed when we knew Russia, China and India were preparing to lift
their own sanctions, leaving the world with no real leverage to get a better deal.
He supports gun rights, saying they save lives, even though more people die from accidental
shootings, than are saved when used defensively. I am a gun owner in favor of more gun control,
because I want to see the balance shifted to give law-abiding citizens a greater advantage
over criminals. (at this point, the gun nuts jump in saying "criminals don't obey the law".
Yes they do when in jail. If we abolished any law that was ever broken....we would have NO
LAWS).
He wants fewer vaccinations for children, to avoid the (discredited) problems with autism.
He wants a more isolationist diplomatic approach & more military.
He focuses on the criminal activity of illegal aliens, even though crime rates are lower
in their communities than in the general population.
He doesn't want the minimum wage raised, he wants more minimum wage jobs - even though
people on minimum wage often require state and federal financial assistance, just to live.
Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem.
We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze
those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil.
Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
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 .
and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore?
Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere
else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them
any longer.
"Neo-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when
de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated
in by both major US political parties.
They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk. Famously
said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste
is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars
around the globe.
What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and
the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be.
To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that
is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)"
will be impossible.
A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that
would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the
exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit
all.
By the "commons" I mean:
General benefit to most common working class people which would include the "class" definition
of "middle classes"....which are in too many cases floundering in the current economic climate.
Universal health care.
An expansion of production "co-ops".
Universal education through at least 2-4 years of "college".
A general overhaul of our Military/Industrial/Intelligence etc./Complex.
A re-allocation of our collected tax priorities (applies to the above).
A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments
all across this country (and across the world).
Capitalism is a game.
There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs
of a progressive society.
The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules.
There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.
We need a total new vision for the globe.
Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos.
We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate.
Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar.
Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......
Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We
continue to fail in history lessons.
As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?)
Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking
man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness
brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia
and racism.
Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys
Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants
to help them.
Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively
wants to help them." As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor
Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every
trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them
to represent us."
Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank
bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever
– these policies have taken their toll.
Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.
You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and
in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs
may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms
instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want
news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk
used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs,
the same idea taken way too far..
And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current
version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed
groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns,
those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with
their bodyguards.
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs
to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing
concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan.
Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained
in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans
rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.
I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see
value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and
Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised
to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels.
However, racism was an important galvanizing factor.
In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean
trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support
against the Muslims at that time.
So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are
his supporters (among other things).
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney,
both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand.
Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a
product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used
to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them
because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from
Viet Nam.
If Trump forces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make
be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously
frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever
state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for?
I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think
it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.
Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free
trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly)
and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full
of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11
million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.
Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from
imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day
and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like
the Space Shuttle.
And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know
this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is
possible.
By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic
migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric
Neil24
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant
Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully
idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling
Congress.
When Donald Trump, Ben Carson and other political outsiders first denounced
political correctness, they instantly struck a nerve. They were promising to
peel back the mushy language that government and so-called sophisticates use
to conceal simple truths.
That urge came over me as I watched Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along
with Jeb Bush, argue over each other's immigration flip-flops during last week's
GOP debate. Because Fox moderators used videos to demonstrate the differences
between where the candidates once stood and where they stand, the truth was
obvious, yet none of the three rivals dared say it.
Why couldn't even one acknowledge that he changed his position and explain
why? And if none would, why didn't the others just say, "You're lying"?
These are three men I admire, yet each lacked the courage to be honest on
a crucial point during a televised job interview. When did the truth become
so toxic and untruths so acceptable?
Spin and puffery have a long history in politics, but something has snapped
in our culture that we no longer even expect our leaders to talk straight. We
have become immune to lies and the liars who tell them.
I blame it on the Clintons. Their survival despite a quarter-century of shameful
dishonesty has led the way in lowering the bar for integrity in public life.
The lost in mail laptop and disappear thumb drive with archived emails story is incredibly fishy.
The whole story in incredible. Both Hillary and her close aides (especially Huma ) come out as completely
incompetent idiots, who can't be trusted any sensitive information. This level of incompetence combined
with recklessness is pretty typical for female sociopath
Notable quotes:
"... The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. ..."
"... The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read. ..."
"... The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. ..."
"... Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.) ..."
"... The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both. ..."
"... Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired. ..."
"... Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes. ..."
"... The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server. ..."
"... Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well. ..."
Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump
this startling news about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal? Hard to believe it was a coincidence
that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily
Beast:
A laptop containing a copy, or "archive," of the emails on Hillary Clinton's
private server was apparently lost-in the postal mail-according to an FBI report released
Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton's emails has been
lost and is not in the FBI's possession.
The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness
handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that
Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. The FBI
director has already said it's possible Clinton's email system could have been
remotely accessed by foreign hackers.
The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed
report about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email account. The report contained
new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted
emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.
More:
The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using
a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later
scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from
public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of
those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents
read.
The FBI has found that Clinton's emails contained classified information, including information
derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.
The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries
of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that
pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive
on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book,"
according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after
the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised
by a Romanian hacker.
Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices,
one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to
people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign
didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)
Read it all. The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either
Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national
security information.
It is like going through a red light because you weren't paying close enough attention as
opposed to consciously choosing to run a red light
Lousy analogy. Running a red is a momentary lapse, not a years-long, well-thought-out conspiracy,
with considerable effort given to covering tracks (BleachBit).
No one in the media wants to say it, but this report almost entirely exonerates Clinton. Yes,
she's lawyerly and is inclined to walk too close to the line, but no – she didn't do anything
immoral or unethical. If at some point it turns out that she's actually done something wrong then
we revisit, but the obsession with this 'crimeless coverup' prevents us from stating the obvious
– Clinton is a solid candidate for President, intelligent, diligent and serious enough to guide
the nation through difficult times. Trump is uncontroversially not.
The moral equivalence games the media plays with the two candidates amounts to a cancer in
our civic fiber that allows us not to put away our childish things.
We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century.
Voters are choosing a woman who put an insecure server containing national security communications
in her basement, and sold our intention and opportunities to do good in the world to rich people
for her own financial gain.
(I lean toward voting for Trump. My issue is the immense paperwork drag on health care delivery
and the increase in cost caused by the "affordable" care act. I expect more of the same with Clinton.
)
Dear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a
way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they
effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering
it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information
going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only
presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here
is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail
account would risk being fired.
This sort of astonishing incompetence is exactly why I originally thought this was a big deal.
The reason you don't want HRC running her own server is because she plainly doesn't know how to
manage, or even hire for, all the inane details of information security.
Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't
use that software to delete emails about yoga classes.
Jay, or, and hear me out, like the other Bill, there has to come a point in time where the shear
amount of claims of criminal behavior has to be considered. The other Bill got away with rape
for years, maybe its time to consider that this Bill and his wife lack credibility in the face
of accusers that HRC has denigrated and called Bimbos.
Leftists make me sick in this. They will cry that we should always believe the victim unless
one of their political leaders are accused. You want to take out a conservative? Give credible
evidence that he is guilty of rape or sexual harassment. We quit voting for them. Your side, deny,
deny, deny….and ultimately demand we move on, just like a previous poster's five stages of a Clinton
scandal.
The only exception to this I can think of is Weiner, not because he did something that is horrible.
No, you guys abandoned him because he was pathetic and embarrassing.
This is the direct quote from the Daily Beast article:
After trying unsuccessfully to remotely transfer the emails to a Platte River server, Hanley
shipped the laptop to the employee's home in February 2014. He then "migrated Clinton's emails"
from the laptop to a Platte River server.
That task was hardly straightforward, however, and ended up exposing the email archive yet
again, this time to another commercial email service.
The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail
(Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails
into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server.
Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly
reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to
find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr).
I assume the same is true of the government as well.
It really makes the Nixon comparisons seem apt, except she has an out for her supporters in
simply claiming that she is a bumbling idiot.
The good liberals here who are starting the writing on the wall with Crooked Hillary should begin
considering the fact that Trump isn't that bad and is actually pretty good in many ways. Come
on over, you will be welcomed warmly.
"... Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving to them they can influence policy, ..."
Low level personnel in the US government are expected to reject gifts, or if culturally they cannot,
then they turn them over to their agency, unless it is something like a coffee or a sandwich.
There is an expectation that people are going to not just not actually corrupt their job by doing
favors for people who give them gifts or do them favors, but that they will avoid the appearance of
corruption that is generated by accepting gifts.
The supreme court doesn't agree with that anymore. Anyone can accept any kind of bribe as long as
they don't let it influence their actions. You can't see the desk for the treasure that's being dumped
onto political tables to fund campaigns and line their personal pockets.
This is a foreign practice, one that is corrupt and should be rooted out nationally. Accepting gifts
creates a corrupting environment, no matter what the recipient does, because EVERYONE understands that
the gift is intended to influence policy or gain access so that the person can influence policy. The
person giving the gift knows it, or they wouldn't give it, the person receiving the gift knows it, but
"deep down in their honest hearts" they're not going to allow it to influence their work and decisions?
No of course not. Buying access is the same as putting a stack of cash into someone's pocket to get
them to vote one way or another on a bill of interest.
Does the Clinton foundation do good work? Sure. Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement
in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount
of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving
to them they can influence policy, even if those people are not in office (through backchannels
and whispers and introductions).
Does every person donating to the Clinton foundation want to influence policy, or are they primarily
motivated by wanting to fund it's good works? This is impossible to tell. Even someone as prominent
and perhaps morally blameless Elie Wiesel isn't there to eat cookies and have tea and talk about the
weather if he's in Hillary Clinton's office. That is not what he is there for. That kind of meeting
is not purely a social call, it's an effort to influence policy, whether it is related to statements
on the Armenian genocide or the Sudan or god knows what.
Is he a person that she should meet with, whether he gives a donation to her foundation or not? Maybe
that is her job. Probably most of these meetings are that way. That's why public officials are expected
to put investments and charities into trusts and blinds and under separate management when they're in
office, to help establish the boundary between their public responsibilities and their private interests
including their charitable interests.
It doesn't matter to me whether she did anything that she shouldn't have done, legally. The letter
of the law is insufficient to dictate the actions of moral people. Is it disqualifying? She's already
been disqualified in my mind, this is just another thing.
Is it disturbing and annoying to me to see the double standard where promoters are willing to weasel
and explain away whatever the Clintons have done that for any person on the other side of the aisle
would be moral issues that disqualify them from office?
If you are still on the fence in the Democratic primary, or still
persuadable, you should know that Vox interviewed a number of political
scientists about the electability of Bernie Sanders, and got responses
ranging from warnings about a steep uphill climb to predictions of a
McGovern-Nixon style blowout defeat. …
On electability, by all means consider the evidence and reach your
own conclusions. But do consider the evidence - don't decide what you
want to believe and then make up justifications. The stakes are too
high for that, and history will not forgive you.
Well ok then obviously Putin is now hacking the Reuters polls now, too.
From the always apocalyptic ZeroHedge:
Trump's rise in popularity began when he started reaching out
to the black and hispanic communities and Hillary's slide began as more
and more disturbing facts were exposed of Hillary's time as Secretary of
State.
– "Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox's debate moderators - Kelly, Bret
Baier, and Chris Wallace - to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. Ailes,
understanding the GOP electorate better than most at that point, likely
thought it was a bad idea. "Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee,"
Ailes told a colleague around this time. But he didn't fight Murdoch on
the debate directive.
On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators
peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions." [Roger's Angels]
Fascinating article, including tactics on taking down the powerful. "It
took 15 days to end the mighty 20-year reign of Roger Ailes at Fox News,
one of the most storied runs in media and political history."
"Making things look worse for Ailes, three days after Carlson's suit
was filed, New York published the accounts of six other women who claimed
to have been harassed by Ailes over the course of three decades. "
6 More Women Allege That Roger Ailes Sexually Harassed Them
So, who had that story cooking and ready to serve? Call me a conspiracy
nut, but one of Hillary's big problems is (or was) her husband's womanizing.
Now right wingers are worse!
My comment is in moderation limbo – how similar to Catholic limbo, I
have no idea…
Anyway, the point I always make is that Murdoch is not ideologically and/or
repub conservative – other than he believes he should be able to make as
much money as possible. His interest in Ailes was always primarily the ability
of Ailes to bring in great profits for Fox.
"... The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox.
The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at
Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable
outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. ..."
Also, Ailes has made the Murdochs a lot of money - Fox News generates
more than $1 billion annually, which accounts for 20 percent of 21st Century
Fox's profits - and Rupert worried that perhaps only Ailes could run the
network so successfully. "Rupert is in the clouds; he didn't appreciate
how toxic an environment it was that Ailes created," a person close to the
Murdochs said. "If the money hadn't been so good, then maybe they would
have asked questions."
…
What NBC considered fireable offenses, Murdoch saw as competitive advantages.
He hired Ailes to help achieve a goal that had eluded Murdoch for a decade:
busting CNN's cable news monopoly. Back in the mid-'90s, no one thought
it could be done. "I'm looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug,"
CNN founder Ted Turner boasted at an industry conference. But Ailes recognized
how key wedge issues - race, religion, class - could turn conservative voters
into loyal viewers.
…. The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside
Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal
audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke
barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives.
Where that outrage is channeled after the election - assuming, as polls
now suggest, Trump doesn't make it to the White House - is a big question
for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship
with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it's
plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in
competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump's appointment
of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has
by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative
energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some
kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if
Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers
by blaming him for the defeat.
=======================================
Just to reiterate a point I have made time and again, with Murdoch it is
all about the money.
It will indeed be ironic if Fox news collapses because the ultimate outcome
of their brand of "conservatism" failed to become president.
I can see the new "network" questioning whether that Australian, an internationalist,
really wants whats best for America…
Yeah. the first image I got when I read that headline was the scene in Breaking Bad when a
phone rings, Walter opens a drawer and has to look through about a dozen phones to find the one
that is ringing.
The most significant thing we learn is that "The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail
content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail
address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server."
Americans must be (or are at least expected to be) the most schizophrenic of all people on
the earth. They are not only supposed to believe that the FBI/NSA (the former Marcy Wheeler, I
believe, thinks is also spying on Americans' emails) cannot locate a copy of the deleted emails,
but that the FBI can't get a warrant to get the 'deleted' emails from Google. Who on earth, on
any other day, or in reference to anything else, actually believes that an email deleted from
a Gmail account is simultaneously deleted from Google's servers & archives?
Even the Hardy Boys would have conducted a harder hitting investigation. What ever happened
to the vaunted tough-as-nails FBI? Talk about pulling your punches. Yeesh!
Add to this Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya sex slaves to get a fuller picture. Looks like she is a
worthy descendant of south slave owners.
Notable quotes:
"... I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks. ..."
"... I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo ..."
"... See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her… ..."
Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves'
WaPo
The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said
they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense
Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and
how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.
==========================================
US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..
"This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for
the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15,
2013
Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking
the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that
it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think
about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This
was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how
women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing
being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked
I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday
about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late.
Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.
Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract
attention from dismal primary issues.
When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality)
take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural
climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.
Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy
in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):
I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign
strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not
that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every
couple of weeks.
So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding
the election.
I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which
is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan
are indefensible.
See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why
don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go
on, tell her…
My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex.
Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in
a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'
He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls
that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered
and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new
dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.
"They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."
The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.
Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights"
was the justification.
"Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took
our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive
than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both
recent and show on the first page of comments:
From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified
Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many
which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler
know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that
he had available to him."
From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is
a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was
raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help,
this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had
him shot, or hanged cant remember, that
"... Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn't given a press conference in more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight. ..."
"... The press has badgered Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President Biden among them, about Clinton's whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election only two months away. ..."
"... The only running Hillary is doing is AWAY from truth and accountability. ..."
"... Leading the lambs to slaughter. There's Syria. There's Iran. There's Russia. And boom! boom!! There's China. They'll all fall in a week. Just like Afghanistan. Just like Libya. Just like Iraq. Just like Yemen. Just like Egypt. Just like the Ukraine. And just like Syria. ..."
"... But it was Hillary, Biden, Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the war. Man up and take responsibility for a change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war ..."
"... Hillary does not know a Classified Message or that she exposed secrets to enemies? By the way an Iranian nuclear scientist who was spying for the U.S. was exposed by Hillary's emails. He was just executed. ..."
"... And as for the University find out why Bill Clinton made 17 million from an on line University that gave donations to the Clinton foundation for favorable treatment overseas. Then get back to me. ..."
"... 50 old guard internationalists that need their old school ideas swept into the dust bin of history. I thought democrats hated Neocons? Now you love them? ..."
In that time, controversy has exploded over Clinton Foundation ties to the State Department. A
steady drip of developments surrounding Clinton's use of a private email server also persists, punctuated
by Friday's release by the FBI of documents pertaining to its investigation into her email set-up.
Those controversies have dragged Clinton's already-dismal approval rating to new lows and have
kept her from slamming the door shut on Trump.
"It used to look like Clinton should just spend the fall at the International Space Station watching
Trump implode, but it raises the question of whether you can disappear from the campaign trail without
it having some effect," said Marquette University pollster Charles Franklin, whose Wisconsin survey
found Clinton's favorability declining across every metric.
Clinton has gone days between events in some cases and hasn't given a press conference in
more than 270 days, a fact that Republicans have been eager to highlight.
The press has badgered Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President
Biden among them, about Clinton's whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election
only two months away.
"I don't think anyone can tell her story as well as she can, so she needs to be out there telling
it," said Democrat Nina Turner, a former top spokesperson for Bernie Sanders. "You have to face the
voters if you want them to vote for you. You have to be out there talking to them and engaging with
them and having real conversations and dialogue."
Leading the lambs to slaughter.
There's Syria.
There's Iran.
There's Russia.
And boom! boom!! There's China. They'll all fall in a week.
Just like Afghanistan.
Just like Libya. Just like Iraq.
Just like Yemen.
Just like Egypt.
Just like the Ukraine.
And just like Syria.
Hillary told the FBI that she had a massive brain injury and blood clot due to a concussion, so
she can't remember anything.
You give her too much credit. And you lie.
Hillary did not broker a peace agreement between Israel and Hamas regarding GAZA.
There is no agreement.
Israel has built a big wall along the GAZA strip to assist their security..
2) As US Senator, Hillary Clinton was a member of the highly classified -
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
3) As Sec of State - Clinton was the boss of the entire US State Dept.
And she signed the following
"CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT",
that she had received the "security indoctrination" etc.,
. . but she clung to her precious Blackberry like a life preserver. She demanded to be able to
use her Blackberry. After all, the President of the United States used HIS Blackberry ( a specially
altered, secure Blackberry ) all the time! It's Ssoooo cool! Why can't she have a special Blackberry
too?
"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction." Turned out all that was found were leaky canisters left
over from the Iran/Iraq war in 1983. For that Bush and all who voted for him set the mid-east
on fire. That's so far up the stupid scale it doesn't ever register.
But it was Hillary, Biden, Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the war. Man up and take responsibility
for a change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for war
Hillary does not know a Classified Message or that she exposed secrets to enemies? By the way
an Iranian nuclear scientist who was spying for the U.S. was exposed by Hillary's emails. He was
just executed.
And Shrillary has no concept of how to handle classified information and left her unsecured server
containing above Top-Secret information open to hostile intelligence services. She should be prosecuted.
Others have for much less.
Tim Kaine graduated from Harvard, did missionary work in Central America, and then was mayor
of Richmond, Lt. Governor, Governor of Virginia, and a U.S. Senator. Trump is a lying, racist,
casino owner with four bankruptcies, three marriages. and a phony "university.".
Obama went Harvard and is an idiot. Missionary work-who cares? He was bad in every office he held
proving Democrats will elect idiots. As for Trump -- you clearly don't know squat about starting
or running a big business. Every Bank that got stuck in a BK is still with Trump because ALL banks
play the odds. Trump as made them billions.
And as for the University find out why Bill Clinton
made 17 million from an on line University that gave donations to the Clinton foundation for favorable
treatment overseas. Then get back to me.
50 old guard internationalists that need their old school ideas swept into the dust bin of history.
I thought democrats hated Neocons? Now you love them?
"... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
"... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
"... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern
economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive
interview for Katehon
I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have
been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility
of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic
crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted
to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control
over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United
States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all
economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even
a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which
is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers,
which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.
The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries
has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening
of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape
of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out
of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution.
Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction
and to wars.
We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but
the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy,
reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism.
It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state
control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This
should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security
etc.
The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which
has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry,
in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state.
Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy
culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and
participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial
system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to
a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have
today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.
Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a
very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders
have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism
of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving
gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.
The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and
Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they
do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and
Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists
are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization.
This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia
should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very
attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.
Years ago, Seinfeld royalties freed Steve Bannon, the new CEO of Trump's
presidential campaign, from needing to work for a living, allowing him to throw
himself into extremist and racist alt-right politics.
Working in the film business, I briefly met the Donald Trump Republican presidential
campaign's new CEO, Steve Bannon, during the 1990s when he was a Hollywood investment
banker. As one producer whom Bannon helped raise capital for told me, even back
then he was an angry, racist, egregiously aggressive, and inappropriately temperamental
character.
Bannon was also whip smart with a sophisticated understanding of how the
media works.
Inside the liberal bubble, Democrats may be taking Bannon's appointment to
help run Trump's campaign as a something of a joke. But, at their peril, they
underestimate Bannon's ability to harm Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential
nominee.
Bannon was one of the early Harvard MBA-type financial pirates who realized
that Wall Street money could be tapped to finance film and television, often
with disastrous results for the investors but with great results for the Hollywood
studios and the financial engineers like Bannon who brokered the deals.
In the late '80s-early '90s, Wall Street discovered that intellectual property
like movies and television and the companies that owned them could be bought,
sold and traded just like hard assets such as real estate and commodities. Bannon
engineered some of those transactions, first as a specialist at Goldman Sachs,
then at his own boutique investment bank Bannon & Co., and briefly in partnership
with a volatile manager Jeff Kwatinetz (whose first claim to fame was discovering
the heavy metal band Korn and managing The Backstreet Boys).
Bannon was tough and merciless. It was Bannon who personally stuck the shiv
in the heart of former superagent and Disney President Michael Ovitz, effectively
ending the career of the man who had been known as the most powerful person
in Hollywood.
After being fired by Disney, Ovitz set out to create a powerful new entertainment
company called the American Management Group, with clients like Leonardo DiCaprio
and Cameron Diaz, in which Ovitz invested over $100 million of his own money.
(I remember visiting AMG's new offices, the most expensive and lavish in Beverly
Hills, with millions of dollars in art by the likes of Mark Rothko and Jasper
Johns adorning the walls.) But AMG was an abject failure, bleeding millions
of dollars a month, while Ovitz desperately sought a buyer. Finally, the only
available buyer was Kwatinetz and Bannon.
According to
Vanity Fair , Bannon went alone to see Ovitz and offered him $5 million,
none in cash. After a moment of silence, Ovitz told Bannon, "If I didn't know
you personally, I'd throw you out of the room." But out of options, Ovitz ended
up selling to Kwatinetz and Bannon's company, effectively ending Ovitz's legendary
Hollywood career. (Remember that, Hillary.)
Bannon's smartest (or luckiest) deal was brokering the sale of Rob Reiner's
company, Castle Rock Entertainment, to Ted Turner. In lieu of part of its brokerage
fee, Bannon & Co. agreed to take a piece of the future syndication revenues
from five TV shows, one of which turned out to be "Seinfeld." The rest is history.
The Seinfeld royalties freed Bannon (with a
reported
net worth of $41 million) from needing to work for a living, allowing him
to try his hand at producing (including the Sean Penn-directed "Indian Runner"
and a number of right-wing documentaries) and then to throw himself into extremist
and racist alt-right politics.
He invested $1 million in a laudatory film about Sarah Palin and became a
close confidante. He then attached himself to Andrew Breitbart and took over
Breitbart News after Andrew Breitbart's sudden death at 43, moving the already
far-right website closer to the openly white nationalist alt-right. There he
became a major advocate for Trump before being tapped to help run his campaign.
But Bannon's real danger doesn't come so much from his work with Breitbart
News, which plays mostly to the angry, racist white base. It comes more from
the Bannon-funded Government Accountability Institute, a research institute
staffed with some very smart and talented investigative journalists, data scientists
and lawyers.
GAI's staff does intensive and deep investigative research digging up hard-to-find,
but well-documented dirt on major politicians and then feeding it to the mainstream
media to disseminate to the general public.
Among other things, its staff has developed protocols to access the so-called
"deep web," which consists of a lot of old or useless information and information
in foreign languages which don't show up in traditional web searches, but often
contains otherwise undiscoverable and sometimes scandalous information which
Bannon then feeds to the mainstream media.
For example, Bannon is responsible for uncovering former liberal New York
congressman Anthony Weiner (husband of Hillary Clinton's personal aide Huma
Abedin) tweeting photos of his crotch to various women. Bannon hired trackers
to follow Weiner's Twitter account 24 hours a day until they eventually uncovered
the infamous crotch shots. They released them to the mass media, effectively
ending Weiner's political career. (Remember that, Hillary.)
Bannon's mantra for GAI is "Facts get shares, opinions get shrugs." GAI's
strategy is to feed damaging, fact-based stories that will get headlines in
the mainstream media and change mass perceptions. According to
Bloomberg , "GAI has collaborated with such mainstream media outlets as
Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS's "60 Minutes" on stories ranging from insider trading
in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially
a mining operation for political scoops."
One of Bannon's key insights is that economic imperatives have caused mainstream
media outlets to drastically cut back budgets for investigative reporting. "The
modern economics of the newsroom don't support big investigative reporting staffs,"
says Bannon. "You wouldn't get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because
nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We're
working as a support function."
So GAI's strategy is to spend weeks and months doing the fact-based research
that investigative reporters in the mainstream media no longer have the resources
to do, creating a compelling story line, and then feeding the story to investigative
reporters who, whatever their personal political views, are anxious in their
professional capacity to jump on. As a key GAI staffer says, "We're not going
public until we have something so tantalizing that any editor at a serious publication
would be an idiot to pass it up and give a competitor a scoop."
It's likely no accident that in the week since Bannon officially joined the
Trump campaign, media attention has shifted from focusing primarily on Trump's
gaffes to potential corrupting contributions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange
for access to Secretary of State Clinton.
GAI's biggest, and most effective project has been to uncover the nexus between
Bill and Hillary's paid speeches, contributions to the Clinton Foundation by
corrupt oligarchs and billionaires, and access to the State Department by donors.
The research culminated in the book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweitzer, president
of GAI, and published by mainstream publisher Harpers.
The back cover of "Clinton Cash" summarizes its premise:
"The Clintons typically blur the lines between politics, philanthropy,
and business. Consider the following: Bill flies into a Third World country
where he spends time in the company of a businessman. A deal is struck.
Soon after, enormous contributions are made to the Clinton Foundation, while
Bill is commissioned to deliver a series of highly paid speeches. Some of
these deals require approval or review by the US government and fall within
the purview of a powerful senator and secretary of state. Often the people
involved are characters of the kind that an American ex-president (or the
spouse of a sitting senator, secretary of state, or presidential candidate)
should have nothing to do with."
Bannon and Schweitzer have so far failed to prove any explicit quid pro quo.
But they're highly successful at making the nexus between the Clinton Foundation,
Bill and Hillary Clinton's paid speeches, and special access for donors feel
dirty and unseemly.
Before and after its publication, "Clinton Cash" got considerable play in
the mainstream media.
The New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline, "Cash Flowed
to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal," drawing on research from "Clinton
Cash."
In an
op-ed piece in The Washington Post, Larry Lessig, Harvard Law professor
and progressive crusader against money in politics concluded, "On any fair reading,
the pattern that Schweitzer has charged is corruption." And it seems that Bannon
and Schweitzer have more damaging research on the Clintons that they will drip
out through the campaign. Schweitzer has
warned that more emails are coming showing Clinton's State Department doing
favors for foreign oligarchs.
Bannon's strategy may not be enough to win the White House for Trump. But
it will almost certainly do further damage to Clinton. Voters already think
Clinton is less trustworthy than Trump. According to a recent
Quinnipiac poll, 53 percent of likely voters say Trump is not honest (with
42 percent saying he is honest). But a huge 66 percent of voters say Clinton
is not honest, compared to 29 percent who say she is.
Bannon's work for Trump could drive Clinton's honesty score even lower. Clinton's
core strategy has been to disqualify Trump as a potential president and commander-in-chief
among a majority of voters. Bannon's strategy is to do the same for Clinton.
Faced with a choice between two presidential candidates whom a large swath
of voters find untrustworthy and distasteful, Trump's outrageousness may still
enable Clinton to grind out a victory from a sullen electorate. But it's going
to get even uglier. And even if Clinton wins, popular distrust could harm her
ability to govern.
In that context, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats and the Clinton
campaign to underestimate Steve Bannon. This piece was reprinted by Truthout
with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission
or license from the source.
Miles Mogulescu Miles Mogulescu is an entertainment attorney/business affairs
executive, producer, political activist and writer. Professionally, he is a
former senior vice president at MGM. He has been a lifelong progressive since
the age of 12 when his father helped raise money for Dr. Martin Luther King,
who was a guest in his home several times. More recently, he organized a program
on single-payer health care at the Take Back America Conference, a two-day conference
on Money in Politics at UCLA Law School, and "Made in Cuba," the largest exhibition
of contemporary Cuban art ever held in Southern California. He co-produced and
co-directed Union Maids , a film about three women union organizers in Chicago
in the 1930s and '40s, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature
Documentary.
"... The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview. The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes. ..."
"... The Times story was published on March 2. ..."
"... I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying "I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That is plain B.S. in my opinion. ..."
"... A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate. ..."
The deletion took place between March 25 and March 31, the FBI learned in a May 3 interview.
The name of the person who deleted the emails was redacted from the FBI's notes.
"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, ------ Indicated he believed he had an 'oh s--t'
moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from PRN server
and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system
containing Clinton;s e-mails," the FBI notes released on Friday stated.
This is crazy. 3 weeks after NYT publish Clinton email
server story, there was a big wipe of her emails conducted
BleachBit is a special computer software that is designed to "prevent recovery" of files so
that, as House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said last week, "even God can't read them."
After the conclusion of the investigation in July, the FBI Director James Comey recommended no
charges against Clinton but added that the Democratic presidential nominee was "extremely
careless" in handling classified material.
The fact that the FBI had this info but excluded it from their deliberations on whether or not to
indict, then did a Labor Day weekend dump when most Americans won't be paying attention, is pretty
conclusive evidence that the FBI under Comey & Lynch is actively working to shield Clinton.
..painfull to realize we have all be played for years by the democrats and yes republicans and large
corporate businesses. Time to take back our control of ourselves and choices, real choices, and not
sell our votes for a freaking free cell phone or promises of free this, free that.....
Actually if you dig deeper you will find that both parties are VERY corrupt. The only way to get
things done is to make deals and cover for each other. Our political system has totally gone amuck.
Actually, I have... and the RNC is fairly clean. The party learned a lesson with Nixon. Sure people
may not have liked the Bush's, but at least they were fairly honest. And Reagan was an awesome President.
Also, Trump can't be bought and is a political outsider.
The DNC and DemocRATs, haven't learned their lesson yet... Slick Willy was almost fully impeached
(House not Senate impeached)... but DemocRATs played party politics and let him go. We ALL know he
was guilty and repeatedly lied under oath (perjury and obstruction)... something you or I would go
to prison for.
Well said. And it fact, as someone commented above, this entire political process & "election" is
little more than a charade. (A bad one at that.)
...Don't be too surprised if/when, sometime in the few weeks, some sort of (manufactured/contrived)
'national emergency' develops, necessitating the 'temporary suspension' of: a) the election process;
b) the Bill of Rights; or c) the entire US Constitution -- and imposition of martial law -- 'Just
until Order can be Restored.' (Or some such bunch of gibberish.)
Given what we've seen over the
last 7+ years, it's darn near predictable: Americans should anticipate an "October Surprise" the
likes of which the world has never seen.
IMPORTANT: when writing "HiLlARy" be sure to use a lowercase L (l), not an uppercase i (I), so it
appears as "hillary" to internet search engines and won't be censored. All corporate media, including
Google, Facebook, and Twitter are filtering the unique word "hiliary." You must spell "hillary" correctly,
so that means using a lowercase L in place of the uppercase i in HiLlARy.
The twitter screen cap clearly shows, "PRN held a conference call
with President Clinton's staff"??
Then, the person who's name is redacted, who was evidently interviewed by the FBI, "deleted the
Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server...
... and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing
Clinton's e-mails"
Kind of unclear, since the conference call was with PRESIDENT Clinton's staff, is this PRESIDENT
Clinton's archive mailbox, on the PRN server containing PRESIDENT Clinton's emails???
Thanks, so in Dec of 2014, Cheryl Mills told 'him' to make changes to email retention setting for
Clinton's emails, and after the PRN conference call, 3/25/15, 'he' realized that 'he' didn't do what
Cheryl told 'him' to do in Dec of 2014, so 'he' did what Cheryl told 'him' to do, 3+ months late,
and wiped 'his' butt with BleachBit on some exported .PST files 'he' created??
Somehow it doesn't
look very much like the headline of this story makes it out to be??
Oh and there is the small minor point that on Nov. 26, 2014 President Obama signs into law an updated
Federal Records Act requiring public officials to forward all work-related email to their government
address. Then comes the Cheryl Mills directive to change retention settings. THEN he/she remembers
didn't follow orders ("the Oh S***" moment) so deletes all pst files plus back ups. NOTHING TO SEE
HERE!!!! /sarcasm
A reminder, the data this firm had in its possession had state secrets including 22-Top Secret-Special
Access Programs. None of these firms had clearance for such. Wonder if everyone whose fingerprints
were on these files got vetted by the FBI and or Intel to determine if they read what they had in
their hands if for no other reason than curiosity?
We are assuming that the server in PRN's management had 'all' Hillary's emails on it, but has there
been proof shown to the public that the server in New Jersey had 'all' Hillary's emails?
The 7
email chains, with 22 TS/SAP information containing emails seem to be from 2011 and 2012, with the
2012 very likely being the New Years Holliday.
Back in June, WSJ reported that the majority seemed to be discussions about a planned CIA drone
strike in Pakistan, that did not end up happening, and it started because the CIA let the US diplomat
in Islamabad know, a day or so before Christmas, so State could weigh in.
Well said. We, the People, may very well never know the details on this batch of state secrets...nothing
new about the Intel folks being tight-lipped. Nothing I've read on-line has given any info on what
the SAP email contained...but, T.S./SAP is the most rigidly controlled/guarded state secret and I
doubt any will become public knowledge. Any way this Hillary state secrets compromise is sliced,
it is a violation of state secrets protocol in my opinion. From the gist of the FBI notes provided
so far, there was little or no effort by the FBI personnel to 'dig' into 'intent,' thus glossing
over a specific state secret statutes. Nor did the FBI team devote much time to 'chasing' the means
by which these 22-T.S./SAP jumped the gap from State's closed-loop secure email system to Hillary's
rogue system...why not?
Lastly, I wonder if anyone from the Intel folks sat-in and or participated
in Hillary's 'walk-in-the-park soft-ball' not under oath chat with the FBI...the Intel folks got
'hurt' badly with Hillary's compromise of the 22 SAP in my opinion.
Many of today's cable news talking heads are mentioning the planned Pakistan drone strike discussions
as if it is now a forgone conclusion. Those of us who don't pay WSJ can read the story from other
sources...
"Some of those emails were then sent by Clinton's aides to her personal email account, officials
told the Journal.
The vaguely worded messages didn't mention the "CIA," "drones" or details about the targets, the
Journal reported.
The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials
had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials
told the newspaper. The still-secret emails are still a part of the ongoing FBI investigation.
One exchange reported by the Journal came before Christmas in 2011 when the U.S. ambassador sent
a note about a planned strike that sparked an email chain between Clinton's senior advisers. Officials
said the exchange was clear those involved in the email were having discussions because they were
away from their offices and didn't have access to a classified computer."
I am unsympathetic to any person involved in such a discussion that circumvents state secrets protocol
because they don't have access to a secure computer. That is an excuse not acceptable. That is saying
"I didn't know any better" to folks who are sitting at the highest levels of state secrets! That
is plain B.S. in my opinion.
And, yet, Hillary's fawning faithful followers are buying the ruse.
Such rationalization of compromising state secrets infuriates men and women in the field who can
die (Amb. Stevens and the men who rushed to their own deaths to help protect Stevens) because of
such bureaucratic idiocy in my opinion beginning with Hillary and her immediate minions merits the
wrath of We, the People not admiration...some of whom questioned Hillary's email mess early-on such
as Amadin who believed Hillary's email stuff was 'outrageous!"
"Outrageous" is an understatement on steroids in my opinion that would get anyone else prison time.
Our Amb. to Pakistan initiated these 'chains', because CIA 'requested input'; those requests seems
to have been off the secure system. The drone operators were not in danger.
If the CIA had pulled
the trigger, it would have before State gave the input CIA asked for, if they traveled to secure
lines.
This is one of the reasons the CIA is dropping out of drone strikes; moving forwards the Defense
Dept. will pull the trigger.
The argument between State and CIA over these discussions does not seem to have started because
of Hillary, and it doesn't seem to have ended because of Hillary. It is only because of the FOIA
disclosures that we know they seem to have agreed to disagree on this subject.
A urinating contest between State and CIA operatives who really didn't need State permission to pull
the trigger on drone strikes is not an excuse for Hillary to have 22-SAP running loose on her email
un-secure un-authorized servers/storage units. I remain unsympathetic to Hillary or anyone else who
compromises state secrets at that level because it is inconvenient to find a secure means to communicate.
Did you read the ViceNews article about the Vaughn Index they received on the 7 'chains' that contain
the 22 emails? You do realize that in at least one chain, a news agency article link, and possible
quote, is being forwarded, and the article is likely the source of the TS/SAP information, don't
you? Even after it is leaked to someone like the NYT or Guardian, a TS/SAP document is still considered
TS/SAP by the NSA, right? Even after everyone on the planet who is interested has read the information,
discussing it on the non-secure system is considered against procedures, right?
"A large number of emails at the center of the Clinton FBI probe appear to have been between U.S.
diplomats in Pakistan and the State Department in Washington D.C. discussing planned drone strikes."
http://www.inquisitr.com/31881... ... "The emails were sent in 2011 and 2012 through a private
server and contained information that allowed the State Department input into a potential drone strike,
where they had the opportunity to voice either opposition or support for the planned strike."
Based on the The Inquisitor article, and the ViceNews article, 8 emails seem to be regarding the
CIA drone strike, and one of the remaining 3 chains was about the news article.
I still remain unsympathetic to anyone caught-up in this compromise of state secrets. Too many lessor
mortals have been severely punished for a lot less and the powerful escape any consequences for Hillary's
mess. The RULE OF LAW is being 'shaded' if not outright lost in this mess!
William Card > iRon Madden
Hillary is a walking psyop. NOTHING about her is real.
Chez Kiva > Chez Kiva • 20 hours ago
A memory lapse? I don't think so. Careless? Yes, careless to a fault. People died. Agents
were outed.
And, the entire thing is a ruse to keep we the Americans from discussing the real infraction,
which is that these CIA players were involved in destroying Libya and simultaneously causing
the Syrian civil war. It wasn't an 'embassy' it was a safe house for all the lettered covert
operatives and arms dealers. That's why she believes here role as 'guardian of State secrets'
is safe.
Mark this "Classified:" We are deliberately involved in destroying 7 countries mid-east in a
row. Iran (read nuclear) comes next!- General Wesley Clark.
CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey > Fred_Shrinka
"Accidently" used BLEACHBIT "guaranteed unrecoverable" Secure Data Erase program?
"... A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department. ..."
"... The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release. ..."
"... "Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson. ..."
"... Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status," the statement said. ..."
"... "Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport." ..."
A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic
passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday,
raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access
at the department.
The request by the adviser, Douglas J. Band, who started one arm of the Clintons' charitable foundation,
was unusual, and the State Department never issued the passport. Only department employees and others
with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel,
officials said.
... ... ...
The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department
aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial
Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release.
"Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring
to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson.
... ... ...
But a person with knowledge of the issue, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the
three men were arranging to travel with Mr. Clinton to Pyongyang less than a week later for the former
president's secret negotiations. Mr. Clinton already had a diplomatic passport as a former president.
... ... ...
Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department
indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or
comparable status," the statement said.
"Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding
that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic
passport."
The emails released by Judicial Watch also include discussions about meetings between Mrs. Clinton
and a number of people involved in major donations to the Clinton Foundation.
In one exchange in July 2009, Ms. Abedin told Mrs. Clinton's scheduler that Mr. Clinton "wants
to be sure" that Mrs. Clinton would be able to see Andrew Liveris, the chief executive of Dow Chemical,
at an event the next night. Dow Chemical has been one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation,
giving $1 million to $5 million, records show.
Ms. Abedin arranged what she called "a pull-aside" for Mr. Liveris to speak with Mrs. Clinton
in a private room after she arrived to give a speech, according to the emails, which did not explain
the reason for the meeting.
The person with knowledge of the issue said that this email chain also related to Mr. Clinton's
North Korea trip because Mr. Liveris had offered to let Mr. Clinton use his private plane.
A separate batch of State Department documents
released by Judicial Watch last month also revealed contacts between the State Department and Clinton
Foundation donors. In one such exchange, Mr. Band sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with
the department's former ambassador to Lebanon.
Donald J. Trump, Mrs. Clinton's Republican opponent, has seized on the documents, saying they
revealed a "pay to play" operation.
"... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
"... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
"... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
"... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
"... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
"... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
"... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
"... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
"... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
"... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is
losing its grip on reality.
Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable
to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.
Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and
placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev
nor in Washington, London, and NATO.
Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories
to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over.
Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.
Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe.
Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being
Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.
Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little
cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared
enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put
their war planes into the air.
This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side
believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.
Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who
do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington
declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms,"
Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington
means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting
in accordance with "international norms."
Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional,
indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.
A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz
Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military
policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's
unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power
to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent
the re-emergence of" any such country.
Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing.
Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's
foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war
and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists
in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and
Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international
law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints,
and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow
of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with
Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action.
Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries
are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's
14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire
it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive
nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in
Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of
whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of
interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."
The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims
in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle
East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.
The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.
Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two
most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle
East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot
think strategically do not survive.
The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has
never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.
If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government
is out to lunch.
Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both
governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington
can be a partner.
These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.
Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World
Hegemony.
Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful
of the West to save Planet Earth?
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have
clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those
with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted
Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing
the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be
hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about
11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing
is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe
others want to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
– More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over
national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate
donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers
over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
Hillary lied again claiming that the existence of her bathroom mail server was a common knoleadge.
Some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were unaware of the server
Notable quotes:
"... some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address ..."
"... The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the existence
of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge." ..."
Mrs. Clinton said in her interview it was "common knowledge" that she had a private email address
because it was "displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails." But the F.B.I. said in a summary
of its findings that "some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that
emails by Clinton only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email
address."
The F.B.I. said that some of Mrs. Clinton's closest aides were aware she used a private email
address but did not know she had set up a private server. The aides said they were "unaware of the
existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."
"some State Department employees interviewed by the F.B.I. explained that emails by Clinton
only contained the letter 'H' in the sender field and did not display her email address." I have
no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to field. How does
their spam filter work if it doesn't reveal who sent it? Why do they read stuff when they don't
have any idea who sent it? Did the F.B.I. really simply accept these statements as facts? Maybe
they all just use cell phones and could care less who else is in the loop.
"Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files." He was
told to delete files that any nitwit knows shouldn't be deleted and delete only means delete if
they can't be found again but now it turns out he was supposed to shred them after removing the
staples.
The clear signal is that if you are going to break laws, hide information from future legal
discovery and generally stonewall investigators with easily disproven statements be very certain
that it at the behest of your liege lord. Laws are for the peasants. Justice is blind for the
elite because no one dares look.
fresno dan
Now we find out a laptop was "lost" in the mail.
Damn, this is gonna be really bad….for the post office.
Of course, it will be hard to spin when it turns out it was addressed to Putin in Hillary's handwriting…
Bunk McNulty, September 3, 2016 at 9:57 am
"The sh!t has hit the fan."
Higgs Boson
What sh!t? What fan? Remember, the FBI gave HRC a pass. Nothing to see. It was all a big "nothingburger".
The only people that keep harping on this are right-wing rubes who get their marching orders from
Putin's army of hackers. It's been assimilated into the Clinton Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy mythos.
Now go vote for Her, because "love [of what, they don't specify] Trumps hate."
"During [Sysadmin's] December 22, 2015 FBI interview, Pagliano recalled a conversation with
[Redacted] at the beginning of Clinton's tenure, in which [Redacted] advised he would not be
surprised if classified information was being transmitted to Clinton's personal server." (Page
28)
Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined;
rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on
career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.
Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to [Redacted] the use of
sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations." (Page 26)
She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall
anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received
at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging
from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained
classified information." (Page 26)
"State employees interviewed by the FBI explained that emails from Clinton only contained
the letter "H" in the sender field and did not display their e-mail address. The majority of
the State employees interviewed by the FBI who were in e-mail contact with Clinton indicated
they had no knowledge of the private server in her Chappaqua residence. Clinton's immediate
aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [Redacted] told the FBI they were unaware
of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at the State or when it
became public knowledge.
Possible Censorship
There were no e-mails provided by Williams & Connolly to State or the FBI dated from January
21, 2009 to March 18, 2009. FBI investigation identified an additional 18 days where Clinton
did not provide State any responsive e-mail. FBI investigation determined 14 of the 18 days
where Clinton did not provide State any responsive e-mail correspond with e-mail outages affecting
Clinton's personal server systems as a result of both Hurricane Irene and Hurricane Sandy.
FBI investigation indicated other explanations for gaps in Clinton's e-mail production could
include user deletion prior to PRN's transfer of Clinton's e-mails for review…" (Page 27)
Security Threats
"Forensic analysis noted that on January 5, 2013, three IP addresses matching known Tor
exit nodes were observed accessing a user e-mail account on the Pagliano Server believe to
belong to President Clinton staffer [Redacted] FBI investigation indicated the Tor user logged
in to [Redacted] email account and browsed e-mail folders and attachments. When asked during
her interview, [Redacted] stated to the FBI she is not familiar with nor has she ever used
Tor Software" (Page 29)
"The FBI does not have in its possession any of Clinton's 13 mobile devices which potentially
were used to send e-mails using Clinton's clintonemail.com e-mail addresses. As a result, the
FBI could not make a determination as to whether any of the devices were subject to compromise.
Similarly, the FBI does not have in its possession two of the five iPad devices which potentially
were used by Clinton to send and receive e-mails during her tenure… (Page 30)
"Investigation identified multiple occurrences of phishing and/or spear-phishing e-mails
sent to Clinton's account during her tenure as Secretary of State. [Paragraph Redacted]…
Clinton received another phishing e-mail, purportedly sent from the personal e-mail account
of State official [Redacted]. The email contained a potentially malicious link. Clinton replied
to the email [Redacted] stating, "Is this really from you? I was worried about opening it!"
… Open source information indicated, if opened the targeted user's device may have been infected,
and information would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in
Russia." (page 31)
Pages 33 – 47 are redacted. About one third of the entire review is redacted.
However email tag data works, her name appears as "H" because she isn't using her typical
address. The address I have seen H appear in is [email protected].
Something about the contact data shows her as H.
There is an exchange between her and mega donor Ms. Rothschild that I saw this in. In the
email Clinton apologizes for inconveniencing her and literally says, "Let me know what penance
I owe you."
I have no idea what kind of email client would hide the contents of the from/reply-to
field.
"Friendly" ones, like, say, Outlook. Some people just don't care for all that gobbledygook,
and Microsoft aims to please. Of course, the sender can put whatever they want in the comment
field.
If this is not obstruction of justice then what is: " ...Representative
Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his committee issued to Mrs.
Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015."
Notable quotes:
"... These were not Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security records that just went out the door, ..."
"... Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I. documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\ ..."
According to the F.B.I., in December 2014 a top aide to Mrs. Clinton told the company that
housed her server to delete an archive of emails from her account. The company, Platte River
Networks, apparently never followed those instructions. On March 2, 2015, The New York Times
reported that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary
of state. Two days later, the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi,
Libya, and Mrs. Clinton's response to them, told the technology firms associated with the email
account that they had to retain "all relevant documents" related to its inquiry.
Three weeks later, a Platte River employee realized he had not deleted the emails as instructed.
The employee said he then used a special program called BleachBit to delete the files. The F.B.I.
said Mrs. Clinton was unaware of the deletions.
The F.B.I. said it was later able to find some of the emails, but did not say how many emails
were deleted, or whether they were included in the 60,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton said she sent
and received while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
But Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah and the chairman of the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, said that the deletion of the emails violated an order his
committee issued to Mrs. Clinton in 2012 and a subpoena issued by the Benghazi committee in 2015.
He said he planned to seek answers from Mrs. Clinton about the deletions. "These were not
Hillary Clinton's emails - they were government records, and this was potentially one of the
largest security breaches at the State Department because they had all these years of security
records that just went out the door," Mr. Chaffetz said. "It's a very black-and-white order.
There's no wiggle room."
Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the F.B.I.
documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."\
The F.B.I. released only small portions of its thick files on the Clinton investigation, and
Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Senate Judiciary Committee,
accused the F.B.I. of withholding key documents - including many unclassified ones - from public
view.
The selective release, he said, produced "an incomplete and possibly misleading picture of the
facts without the other unclassified information that is still locked away from the public and
even most congressional staff."
"... "When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words. ..."
"... The author was chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from 2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, ..."
"... How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead of more opinion? ..."
"... Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered "payment for the campaign's mailing lists" ..."
"... According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws which may be implicated. ..."
"... One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated. So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims. ..."
"... If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal. ..."
"... Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their election day decisions? ..."
"... You did not mention that there was no independent investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or "significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken. ..."
"... And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the public square in this once great country? ..."
"... If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during Hillary's tenure at the State Department? ..."
"... as the neocons and neolibs in power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how the sector works. ..."
"... the system they devised inevitably empowers some groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but reality dictates otherwise. ..."
"... In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help. ..."
"... Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such tools as it is. ..."
"... Our laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government, anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic. ..."
"... How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the country, at least in medicine. ..."
"... I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote. ..."
"... It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain access to Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy. The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us. ..."
"... When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is the rotten judgement. ..."
"... You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to run against. ..."
"... If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there was Dennis Hastert. ..."
"... You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok? ..."
"... The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now? ..."
"... To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme ..."
"... During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to $156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives. ..."
"... The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten. ..."
"... Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture thinks? ..."
This is not the typical foundation funded by family wealth earned by
an industrialist or financier. This foundation was funded almost entirely by donors, and to the
extent anyone in the Clinton family "earned" the money, it was largely through speaking fees for
former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton when she was not secretary of state. This
dependence on donations - a scenario remarkably similar to that of many political campaigns -
means that the motivations of every single donor will be questioned whenever a President Clinton
does anything that could conceivably benefit such donors.
... ... ...
This kind of access is the most corrupting brand of favoritism and
pervades the entire government. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, top
ambassadorial posts routinely go to campaign contributors. Yet more campaign contributors hound
these and other State Department employees for introductions abroad, preferred access and
advancement of trade and other policy agendas. More often than not the State Department does
their bidding.
... ... ...
The problem is that it does not matter that no laws were broken, or
that the Clinton Foundation is principally about doing good deeds. It does not matter that
favoritism is inescapable in the federal government and that the Clinton Foundation stories are
really nothing new. The appearances surrounding the foundation are problematic, and it is and
will be an albatross around Mrs. Clinton's neck.
... ... ...
As for Chelsea Clinton, anti-nepotism laws, strengthened after
President Kennedy appointed his brother Robert as attorney general, could prevent her mother from
appointing her to some of the highest government positions. But she could give her mother
informal advice, and there are a great many government jobs for which she would be eligible. She
does not need the Clinton Foundation to succeed in life.
Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of
Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.
Majortrout, is a trusted commenter Montreal 2 days ago
"When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew
exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words.
chichimax, albany, ny 2 days ago
I have a hard time focusing on this article. The author was chief ethics lawyer for the
George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from
2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, but, thinking
about those other lawyers for that Bush and what they said was okay, it really gives me the
creeps to think about focusing on anything this guy might say about ethics. Just sayin'.
Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago
How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every
one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real
in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead
of more opinion?
If the foundation is so squeaky clean there should be no problem.
Or has Hilary made it clear you won't get a front row seat at her next mythical press
conference? Or has she threatened to stop sending you the press releases from her campaign you
report as news?
Ange, Boston 2 days ago
Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that
the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered
"payment for the campaign's mailing lists"
Crabby Hayes, Virginia 2 days ago
According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws
which may be implicated.
One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use
a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special
access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated.
So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims.
Randy, Largent 2 days ago
If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged
meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed
hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the
Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations
effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal.
Isa Ten, CA 2 days ago
Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that
federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that
the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their
election day decisions?
You did not mention that there was no independent
investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or
"significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken.
Your main argument is that "everyone" does that. Perhaps, it is
time to change that and Trump is the man who can do it. Is it fear of this kind of change that
frightens so many NeverTrumpsters into rejecting him?
And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what
about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the
public square in this once great country?
David Keltz, Brooklyn 2 days ago
If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill
Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during
Hillary's tenure at the State Department?
Did he suddenly become more sought after, nearly 8 or 9 years after his presidency? If
there was no evidence of corruption, then why did Hillary Clinton use her authority to appoint
herself onto the Haiti Relief Fund Board, where her sole relief efforts entailed asking people
not to donate to the Red Cross, but to the Clinton Foundation?
John D., Out West 2 days ago
One thing that comes through loud & clear in the comments: a lot
of people don't have a clue how non-profit organizations work. For a sector that's responsible
for most of the good things in this country these days - as the neocons and neolibs in
power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on
enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how
the sector works.
James Lee, Arlington, Texas August 31, 2016
The framers of our Constitution had no illusions about the weaknesses of human nature. They
carefully crafted our charter of government to pit the officials of each branch against each
other, to obstruct the kind of collusion that could undermine the foundations of a free
society.
Despite their best efforts, however, the system they devised inevitably empowers some
groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as
representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those
agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but
reality dictates otherwise.
In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always
decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal
methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage
subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials
to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help.
Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the
informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might
affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important
method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such
tools as it is.
confetti, MD August 31, 2016
I don't think that favoritism in political life will ever go
away, for the simple reason that political power isn't attained in a vacuum. It requires
sturdy alliances by definition, and those are forged via exchange of valued items - material
goods, policy compromises, position, status, assistance and other durable support. Our
laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture
makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government,
anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible
strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic.
Of course the Clintons wheeled and dealed - but well within the
law.
I'm more interested in what end that served and the real
consequences than the fact that it occurred. In their case, an effective charity that aided
many very vulnerable people was sustained, and no demonstrable compromises that negatively
affected global policies occurred.
It's the Republicans and truly sold out Democrats, who have
forever been deep in the pocket of big money and whose 'deals' in that department cause
tangible harm to the populace, that I'm more concerned with. This is their smoke and mirrors
show.
Alexander K., Minnesota August 31, 2016
How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication
is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors
owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that
such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the
country, at least in medicine.
It is time that conflict of interest for politicians at all levels is taken seriously by
the public. I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the
political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such
incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote.
Great editorial.
Michael Belmont, Hewitt, New Jersey 2 days ago
It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton
Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute
to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain
access to Mrs. Clinton. The AP analysis suggests that is just what went on. At the very
least it looks bad. Appearances are everything in politics.
Hillary doesn't need to appear to be unethical should she
be elected. Bad enough she has Bill by her side. She doesn't need a special prosecutor
investigator distracting her presidency with an influence peddling scandal. Like it or not,
Republicans will be hunting for her political hide. Hillary doesn't need to paint a bulls-eye
for them.
Chris, 10013 2 days ago
I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have
always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to
secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to
the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy.
The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and
Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off
the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They
can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be
inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us.
In the Clintons, we have highly competent, experienced, politicians who have repeated
shown deep ethical problems. She is the best candidate by far. It's unfortunate that our
future President never learned what ethics are.
Robert, Minneapolis 2 days ago
An interesting article. It is probably true that many, if not most, politicians are
influence sellers to a degree. I suspect that the Clintons are just better at it. It is fair
to say that we do not know if laws have been broken. But it is also fair to say that
appearances matter, and that the Clintons are very good at lining their own pockets at the
same time the foundation does it's good work.
When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business
interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is
the rotten judgement.
You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with
the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor
judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have
a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to
run against.
Madelyn Harris, Portland, OR 2 days ago
So glad to see many NYT readers here recognize the hypocrisy in this opinion piece. The
message is "All of them do it, it's mostly legal, though it's distasteful and problematic.
However, Hillary is the only one who should stop doing it because it looks bad."
The loudest voices of this partisan attack should be under the same scrutiny and be
compelled to practice what they preach. If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital
affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there
was Dennis Hastert.
Let's start looking into the personal emails of Paul Ryan, Jason Chaffetz, Donald Trump,
Trey Gowdy, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Imagine what we would find! Legal, but ethically
problematic exchanges and clearly illegal exchanges that would justify imprisonment. If they
ask for justice, we should provide it.
Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago
You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator
husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault
victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok?
John D., Out West 2 days ago
An excellent piece, actually tethered to reality and non-profit law and practice ...
finally! Yes, all the Clinton clan needs to divorce themselves from the foundation, and I'm
not sure why they would wait until after the election to do so.
It seems the loudest critics are of the tribe that created campaign finance law as it
stands today, with the CU case having created a legal system of bribery across the board in
government. C'mon guys, be consistent, or it's the big H word for you!
RNW, Albany, CA 2 days ago
When it comes to ethics and public officials, appearances do in indeed MATTER! Cronyism and
conflicts of interest might elicit a big yawn from the political class, their fellow travelers
and camp followers but arouse anger and indignation from voters. Remember those guys?
We're the ones that politicians suddenly remember every few years with they come. hats in
hand, begging for donations and, most of all, our votes. (The plea for donations is a farce.
Except for a few outliers, they don't really need or want OUR donations.)
The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the
in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the
Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake
up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is
coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now?
Tembrach, Connecticut 2 days ago
I preface this by saying that I am proud Democrat & will vote for Mrs. Clinton, as Mr.
Trump is beyond the pale of decency
To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public
office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme
During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official
meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to
$156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives.
The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the
appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst
example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal
for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights
subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation.
Mrs Clinton rightly condemns Trump for playing footsy with Putin. But pray tell, what
exactly was this?
I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and
their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us
Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten.
Thought Bubble, New Jersey 2 days ago
Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were
broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture
thinks?
More than half of the people who managed to score a personal one on one meeting with Hillary Clinton
while she was Secretary of State donated money to the Clinton Foundation, either as an individual
or through a company where they worked. "Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million.
At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million," the Associated Press
reported.
Does that make Hillary corrupt? Yes. It does.
At this writing, there is
no evidence that anyone received any special favors as a result of their special access to Clinton.
Not that treats were not requested. They were. (The most amusing was Bono's
request to stream his band's music into the international space station, which was mercifully
rejected.)
That's irrelevant. She's still corrupt.
Clinton's defenders like to point out that neither she nor her husband
draw a salary from their foundation. But that's a technicality.
The Clintons
extract millions of dollars in travel expenditures, including luxurious airplane accommodations
and hotel suites, from their purported do-gooder outfit. They exploit the foundation as a patronage
mill, arranging for it to hire their loyalists at extravagant six-figure salaries. Charity Navigator,
the Yelp of non-profits, doesn't bother to issue a rating for the Clinton foundation due to the pathetically
low portion of money
($9 million out of $140 million in 2013) that makes its way to someone who needs it.
"It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a
slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog
group.
As a measure of how institutionally bankrupt American politics is, all this
crap is technically
legal. But that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
Public relations experts
caution politicians like the Clintons that the
appearance of impropriety is almost as bad as its actuality. If it looks
bad, it will hurt you with the polls. True, but that's not really the point.
The point is: access is corruption.
It doesn't matter that the lead singer of U2 didn't get to live out his rocker
astronaut fantasy. It's disgusting that he was ever in a position to have it
considered. To put a finer point on it, ethics require that someone in Hillary
Clinton's position never, ever take a meeting or correspond by email or offer a
job to someone who donated money to her and her husband's foundation. Failure
to build an unscalable wall between government and money necessarily creates a
corrupt quid pro quo:
"Just got a call from the Clinton Foundation. They're
shaking us down for a donation. Should we cough up a few bucks?"
"Hillary could be president someday. Chelsea could end up in the Senate. It
couldn't hurt to be remembered as someone who threw them some money when they
asked."
This, I 100% guarantee you, was the calculus when Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary for a one- or two-hour speech. She doesn't have anything new to say that everyone hasn't already heard million times before. It's not like she shared any valuable stock tips during those talks. Wealthy individuals and corporations pay politicians for one thing: access.
Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the
book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.
I am getting those "living a past life" feelings; swimming with a school of
my fellow fish, and sensing that a huge fishing net is being drawn in, with my
group in it. Feeling the slack noose around my horse-neck, slowly begin to
tighten; Seeing a hardening in the faces of the formerly "friendly" occupying
soldiers of my little town.
Google is Censoring Hillary's Health Problems Search Results
"... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
"... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
"... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
"... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
"... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
"... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
"... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
"... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
"... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
"... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
"... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
"... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
"... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
"... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
"... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
"... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
"... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
"... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
"... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
"... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
"... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
"... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
"... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
"... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
"... orders you to consent ..."
"... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
"... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the
left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as
a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support
for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent
task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure
of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist
politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal
to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and
affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the
self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard
version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.
The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations
of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of
the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment,
updated to take account of the radically different technological and social
structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development
is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between
the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive
public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet
ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy
agenda.
In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a
political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists
assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for
the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition
of leftists and soft neoliberals.
This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in
the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal,
has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win,
her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete
with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton
presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism,
the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.
The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully,
it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend
towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends
on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.
Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am
I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need
true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections,
like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to
be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled
with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US –
inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme
Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the
next eight years).
Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of
tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"
My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism,
at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural
past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'.
(I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism
and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity
for those to align with that of the right)
bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?
It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you
think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over
the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see
an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?
And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political
failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition?
Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?
Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?
MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism,
such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose
them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"
I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually
believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are
arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes
an arsehole.
Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that
they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most
people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have
reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude
self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is,
and this drum should be banged more.
PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that
usually are mixed up:
1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant
is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing
nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international
inequality.
2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how
exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator
of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income
inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.
These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the
impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by
the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese
workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated
the fall in relative wages.
Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers
in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers
in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism
and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort
of allergic to tribalism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both
promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that
Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a
dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called
racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close
the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated
, will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened
in Germany? It's a troubling question.
casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
"The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the
accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative
must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar
social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different
technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological
terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the
Internet."
Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers,
starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is
from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really
will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry
of jobs and manufacturing.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics;
downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to
supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement
and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer
supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy.
IOW, an economic failure.
(Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)
Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education
but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive.
It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education
and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But
this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals
the show.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as
people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence
enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality,
so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic"
terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious,
but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.
This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation
happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities
"tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities
between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're
talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people
in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left.
But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly
know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries
like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided
interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism"
serves this conversation as a signifier.
For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist"
defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on
the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty
from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to
defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean
accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World
social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin
appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions
in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the
economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering
a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism,
and so on and so on à la Lenin.)
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap
to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely
not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation
of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created
the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put
incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in
its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic
conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism)
is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left
than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and
the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee
for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for
two reasons.
First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for
neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case
in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice
between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).
Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological
estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political
power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path
of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a
sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia,
for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality
he reached power.
Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change
(if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic
countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.
I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge
in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.
Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
Bravo, Will G-R!
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to
be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired
in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern
political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community"
of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy
into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
)))))))))))))))
I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call
national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage
which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits
for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world.
I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance?
I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same
thing.
The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force
would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try
not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.
For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through:
current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to
turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity
can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance,
I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important
problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require
a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no
amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually
exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs
wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own
ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").
You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys
real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather
than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite.
The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter
what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class
status preservation.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
@ comment 16:
I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US,
there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change.
Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures
of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers
that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist
marketification of everything.
So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual
action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that
is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like
racism and environmental problems.
So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal
enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting
fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but
the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them
for swimming in circles is… problematic.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
)))))))))))
I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism
and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point
is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To
just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology
is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility
of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
"Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably
didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in
circles is… problematic."
I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to
call attention to this. I
helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the
facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently
what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia.
As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas
might.
Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that
350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural
approach means that nothing is possible.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm
@ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary
baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist
ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.
As hesitant as I am to play the
"Fallacy
Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of
Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist
Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken,
but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a
different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly
clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all
sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people
to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as
the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the
problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see,
and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless
ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this
problem.
On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin
calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of
our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to
characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore
natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a
reading /
listening recommendation.
RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the
term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always
used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper
analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first
took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed
as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do
not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British
system of politics and government long before these failures became widely
acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure,
the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself,
again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts'
must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can
be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.
More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is
now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its
own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons
neoliberals direct against their critics?
But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's
dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding
should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly
a whole lot of different "tribes."
awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the
face of insurgencies on the left and right?
Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism
("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural
recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure,
is different, although related (sadly)
"But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public
sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements,
as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run
on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all
smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part
of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is
to take communitarianism more seriously.
The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming,
technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic
commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as
well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for
the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles,
but it's still working.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth
opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat
of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should
call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of
deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized
wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central
to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of
history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating
the discourses of racism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist
and Marxist Richard Lewontin:
Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science
is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is
that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know
, maybe someone will get it right some day.
A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism
is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy
into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically
based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every
center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted.
But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait
to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that
takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists
would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.
Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
Bob Zannelli @27
"about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin
, the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader
in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
"I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment
will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by
which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway
than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others
than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough
that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is
about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage
the good sides.
One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count
on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities
to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism
is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about
it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the
money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need
you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question
in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
)))))))))))))
Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can
be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing
the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based
economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn
from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.
In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault,
with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not
conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics,
and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear
weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These
days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake
, old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
@ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not
planning around it would be foolish.
But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some
vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in
terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism,
we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has
a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever
ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national
and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think
about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human
nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically
contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired
as the institutions themselves.
It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for
the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they
feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.
At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The
arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to
make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy"
in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether
the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's
even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally
the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity
than global capital already seems to achieved.
To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation
of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of
all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective
masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or
maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught.
Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal
political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers
of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also
one of global capital's greatest nightmares.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from
Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper
sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism."
I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent
in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as
comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory
as diametrically opposed to each other.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime
The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no
longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting
surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the
transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this
will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy
or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better
expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely
not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient
affiliations.
Clover's model is the Paris Commune.
(PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that
usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe)
or even better Crooked Timber.)
Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily,
to justify the emotions.
There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon
to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar
job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:
–nature is selfish
–resources are scarce
–money measures real value
–wants are infinite
–there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
–you have to work for your daily bread
–incentives matter
–people want to keep up with the Joneses
–labor should be geographically mobile
–government is inefficient
–welfare destroys families
–printing money causes inflation
–the economy is a Darwinian mechanism
These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming
inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.
Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head,
is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And
which causes most of our problems.
Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet
obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would
be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you
say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to
the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity,
and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed
to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting
human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy,
and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait,
wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have,
and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life.
In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants
are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads
the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter":
if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families."
…But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth,
yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available,
and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches,
isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets
solved when we solve the real problem?
But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know
how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think
that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that
we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism
is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles
are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught
in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their
enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are
simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.
Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer
to Carnival
Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution
that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and
the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew
society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the
social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social
transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention
on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."
I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious
analysis to say that it is.
"Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube
used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11,
I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at
first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling
system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling
package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because
the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.
Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
"Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong
faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in
the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the
Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles,
the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But
all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years
ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion
of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because
it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the
demands of their tribal masters.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
. . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side
honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or
Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial
and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed
like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.
Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich
points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right
who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing
that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly
caring Lefties.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible
Patrick Murphy.
Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might
be premature.
Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
@ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up:
what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member
of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party?
(I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals
are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members
of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).
Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who
supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them,
how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it
does not benefit them.
I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential
government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential
employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that
they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers
who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.
I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism"
is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll
try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has
never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on
a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but
may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then
that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters,
who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have
a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.
As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which
it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense.
American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade.
It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism
and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.
Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon
(without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating),
but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered
a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.
As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton,
you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage.
To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats
had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception
was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised
by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats
were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.
So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic
ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever
we're calling the left alternative to it.
Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
"Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism"
has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis
of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social
democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength
it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity
– built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a
surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the
form, that matters.
Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak,
to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate
change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental
and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can
best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer
I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will
intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat
challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry
them.
If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries,
it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives
in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but
really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries,
socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism
and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of
"tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular,
contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism.
You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but
since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode)
then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.
Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because
there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many
recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken
power.
John Quiggin,
What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's
significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion
to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or
will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding
population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).
I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the
argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't
see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).
If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move,
and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps
we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism
(joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left.
I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of
the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on
the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated
with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense
of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not
in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the
sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion
back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting
liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically
appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini.
The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the
socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is
characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and
the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority
is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day
manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist
regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't
what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well,
a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.
Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody
I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's
liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term
"neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli
Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia,
Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake
of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer
problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely
refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible
with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't
well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs,
to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. .
. . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly
promise control that lost it.
You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency
by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation
is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.
The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout
is a cover story for the looting.
The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences.
The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has
to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
Will G-R @ 55
So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that,
rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80
years ago were so much clearer.
We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini,
he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead
past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance
state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical
fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an
iPhone app.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
reason @ 54
Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global
order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires
are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the
bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void
between.
It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left
would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an
elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses
with robots.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
"Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our
stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little
quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party
system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political
currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of
either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously
to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save
the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces
that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start
marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll
do us.
In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern
Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary,
Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role
as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist
seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly
transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties
in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit
more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would
be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard
fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense
than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one
up.
Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
> You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism.
Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals
will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers,
they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower
in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China,
Zimbabwe, North Korea, …
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is
(unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly
while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and
listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.
Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they
can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300
hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves
you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge
of what's going on, you are part of the problem.
Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their
name, or who has good hair.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying
the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is
categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't
be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not
an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently
represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however
mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the
contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that
fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except
as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever,
it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.
BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason,
so
here's Take 2 .
Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The
use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political
order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race)
the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism (
Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism
is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic,
it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights,
and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the
connection.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.
Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast
because the society works or because the society fails.
Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions
of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants.
Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego
maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism
seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top
The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task
- it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified
by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as
are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either
directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed
a parasitic elite.
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of
whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you
ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life
being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all
and deliver nothing.
Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser
evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians,
both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net;
they are competing to deliver you.
Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300
hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of
a frontal lobotomy.
I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard"
and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have
been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals -
that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those
insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite
grasp, but never mind.
Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that
one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.
Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she
wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in
Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal
design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if
she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in
the face of Republican intransigence.
In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial
classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance
state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future
are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity
against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph
even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
Will G-R, Bob Zannelli
Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy,
en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you
can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech
and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political
categories, if not universes.
There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive
that the conversation hardly seems worth having.
stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy,
Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase
in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably,
Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina,
the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of
a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)
There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted
fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure
states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called
Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of
WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany.
Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely
fascist.
In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states
as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but
the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how
fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate
things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are
not organized as business firms.
Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and
mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself,
with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating
Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes
or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the
Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians.
(Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the
structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody
expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a
mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war,
as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist
states.
The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every
notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical
is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines
that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a
kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph
of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable
alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such
a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's
SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no
such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.
Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive"
aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions,
is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's
felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the
sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love
the specific people like them that they love and hate others.
One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect
the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're
never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're
almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you
do.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .
There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology
and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a
strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices
and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave
them into.
There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .
Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break
with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but
in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes
required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB
is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he
said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million
Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while
some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think
that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their
ideology.
But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue
indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal
types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling
Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally,
what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people
on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite
in a Popular Front to oppose them.
I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is
going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic
Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become
Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are
going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left
interests.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our
present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the
GOP in any meaningful sense;
as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional
leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological
organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be
a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading"
his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face
on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump
him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore
his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.
What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump
per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning
of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious
way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and
should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through
a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.
Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
Val etc.
I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view
that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the
in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors
than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the
key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal
and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.
Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation,
free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the
idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over
another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly
meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).
The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal
distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based
on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.
So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support
it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone
better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would
make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the
grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry
too much about the other guys.
Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap,
mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies'
and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend
to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a
good general description of the distinction.
And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean
any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone
is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring
explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down
on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as
any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and
a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the
tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.
Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am
What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what
you will, is a necessity.
It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that
provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide.
It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity
and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment.
Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an
out-group, citizens and non-citizens.
To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional
Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently
appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human
flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society
in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally,
tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual
aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human
beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I
think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity
(not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence
events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless
atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm
Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy.
As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect
change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.
Just to give voice to
the
contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role
in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy:
even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine
if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number
of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by
2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not
just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral
process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter
turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution
to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized
is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option
to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens
have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote"
for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political
stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is
a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.)
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.) {}
Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state
separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I
find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent
his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the
revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not
entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the
revolution, I hope that works out for you.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm
Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut
it with a knife…
"Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable
to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy"
. My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised
on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote
in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of
consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system
that orders you to consent .
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My
counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the
consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a
democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent.
As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that
orders you to consent.{}
I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism
to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative
, over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss
it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was
ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during
the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still
living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the
dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm
if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm
Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent."
Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting
is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.
Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."
Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone
ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to
do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's
real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the
"Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to
repeat, nothing.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?
There is no alternative.
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}
Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage
in politics.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul
evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil
makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically,
there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm
stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.
So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy?
Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population
was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the
contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation
can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy
actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in
silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer
is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal
democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders
are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate
in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology
of its legitimating idea.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm
Will G-R @ 94
Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on
some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic
and opportunistic pieties?
Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only
the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials
in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections
with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in
2015.
Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical
infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote,
after all!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion
space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and
in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and
unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing
so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government
or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society
there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed
to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn
CT into yet another space where it isn't.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm
not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally
post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite
beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense.
Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology
of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics.
His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure
in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle
of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save
failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe
economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism
leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in
the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries,
unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform,
it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail,
but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power,
gentrifying as they go, continues.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially)
local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone
to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize
the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under
President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy
is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things
at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't
done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the
mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy
of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually
be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to
openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently
legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried
to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that
Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about
its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates
the point.)
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
"... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
"... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
"... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or
citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to
sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism
into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.
The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has
failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists
somehow get the upperhand.
I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping
that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen.
They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism
has failed.
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like
the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every
American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe
a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at
local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting
their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like
the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as
such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post
here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity
of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's
project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters?
souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA
for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable
because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis
is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the
world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any
in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime
change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the
owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments
without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if
they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what
benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't
really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into
practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also
a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is
too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us
that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that
he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.
"... Clinton cannot recall, or chooses not to recall, a briefing she received on January 22, 2009. Either one implicates her as incompetent or a liar. I say both... ..."
"... "she could only work at State for a few hours a day" So her paycheck was cut to reflect her shorter hours like everybody else, right? ..."
"... That's why she invaded Libya which had nothing to do with anything. She was only half conscious. ..."
"... She bombed Libya because she forgot Soweto Obama had already won the Nobel Peace Prize. ..."
"... When someone with severe anti-social personality disorder tells you "I don't recall," especially when 'recalling' would result in negative consequences for a particular action or actions, it is usually not a problem with memory. ..."
"... So she get the Nuclear Key and forgets about when to use it or if she actually did. Very convenient setup. ..."
"... Clinton said she never sent classified data from her server. Turned out to be false. Using BleachBit shows she was trying to destroy evidence. ..."
With much of the recent discussion focusing on Hillary Clinton's general health condition, and
mental acuity in particular, we wonder if the FBI just threw her under the bus with the following
statement which links Hillary's "inability" to remember her transition instructions with her 2012
concussion and blood clot:
CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production
of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in early 2013.
However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a
blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and
could not recall every briefing she received . CLINTON did not have any discussions with aides
about turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her
work-related emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email address
of her staff. CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time.
Her physical records were boxed up and handled by aides.
The original, on page 9 of 11:
CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation
or production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State
in early
2013, However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year
had a blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State lor a few hours a
day and
could not recall every briefing she received. CLINTON did not have airy discussions with aides
about
turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her work-related
emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email addresses of her
staff.
CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time. Her physical
records
were boxed up and handled by aides.
Clinton cannot recall, or chooses not to recall, a briefing she received on January 22,
2009. Either one implicates her as incompetent or a liar. I say both...
Clinton's sole briefing occurred on January 22, the day after the Senate confirmed
her to the post. On that date, as the nation's top diplomat, Clinton signed a document acknowledging
she received a security briefing.
"I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature
and protection of SCI," or the nation's highest classified materials, was part of the pledge
in the document.
It amazes me how Alex Jones, Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin have such an extensive network
they can now plant their CONSPIRACY THEORIES in FBI reports.
Clearly the Russians are behind it. Better for vote Clinton.
Here is the definitive video on the true state of Hillary's health and why she should not be elected
president of the USA. Hillary is quite ill and the media is doing a masterful job of covering
it up.
When someone with severe
anti-social personality disorder tells you "I don't recall," especially when 'recalling' would
result in negative consequences for a particular action or actions, it is usually not a problem
with memory.
Here is an idea: The govt needs to build a senior care facility just outside DC, perhaps on the
grouds of Langley. Top drawer care and facilities for , for, for , elderly prior elected or appointed
officials. It woudl be a safe zone for them, nothing they say is recorded but then again limited
visitors.For recreation thay woudl have conference rooms and board rooms, even a copy of the Oval
Office-those deemed messed up go live there and have the make believe meetings and conversations
thay always wanted to have without creating problems.
Newly elected or appointed officials woudl be taken out there for field trips to be shown what
happens when you lose your effectiveness.
The cost woudl be offset by not having to pay for secret service, not paying their retirement
(that goes to the facility) or pay for private planes to travel.
Put Reid, Pelosi, McCain, mcConnell there to start. Bush , both of them, Cheney--add enough
of these folks they can hold make beleve meetings. Then add Hillary --they can hold make beleve
cabinet meetings, authorize huge spendng programs, start wars without declarign them--
it wodl be a make believe garden of eden.
we could build on this and make is a offer they cannot refuse.
This is frgiin priceless as her health is not a concern.....until she needs an excuse for treaon
- LOCK HER UP: Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all the briefings she received
on handling sensitive information as she made the transition from her post as U.S. secretary of
state, due to a concussion suffered in 2012.
Wait. Time out. Don't you see the chess move? She's going to use the "I had a brain clot" to escape
doing Federal jail time. Kind of like when your girlfriend tells you "not tonight, honey, I've
got a headache." Except we're all going to end up with headaches if she beats the rap and gets
elected.
"CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or
production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State
in early 2013."
Clinton said she never sent classified data from her server. Turned out to be false. Using
BleachBit shows she was trying to destroy evidence.
"... Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately? ..."
"... What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals (what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue, America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house." ..."
"... On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures, he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism. For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click here . ..."
"... Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American policy-making misconceptions going back generations. ..."
"... Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing exporters. ..."
"... In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their most advanced production know-how. ..."
"... Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export. In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the advanced production know-how in the first place. ..."
"... Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington Post . (A good account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.) ..."
Is Donald Trump really as stupid as the press seems to think? And if not, how do we explain
the press's version of countless Trumpian controversies lately?
Take, for instance, the Kovaleski affair. According to a recent Bloomberg survey, no controversy
has proven more costly to Trump.
The episode began when, in substantiating his erstwhile widely ridiculed allegation that Arabs
in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account
in which law enforcement authorities were stated to have detained "a number of people who were allegedly
seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the
devastation on the other side of the river." This seemed to settle the matter. But the report's author,
Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he alleged, was an exaggeration.
Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking
reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had bowed to political correctness.
So far, so normal for this election cycle. But it turned out that Kovaleski is no ordinary Trump-dissing
media liberal. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed.
For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real
estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if disturbing, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could
now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking a disabled person.
Trump pleaded that he hadn't known Kovaleski was handicapped. This was undermined, however, when
it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in
Trump Tower. Trump was reduced to pleading a fading memory, something that those of us of a certain
age can sympathize with, but, of course, it didn't wash with Trump's accusers.
In responding directly to the charge of mocking a disabled person, Trump commented: "I would never
do that. Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one
(although to the press's chagrin, many of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable
private generosity underlies his tough-guy public image), it is hard to see how anyone can question
point two. Even if he really is the sort of unspeakable buffoon who might mock someone's disability,
he surely has enough political smarts to know that there is no profit in doing so in a public forum.
There has to be something else here, and, as we will see, there is. Key details have been swept
under the rug. We will get to them in a moment but first let's review the wider context. Candidate
Trump's weaknesses are well-known. He is unusually thin-skinned and can readily be lured into tilting
at windmills. His reality-television persona is sometimes remarkably abrasive. His penchant for speaking
off-the-cuff has resulted in a series of exaggerations and outright gaffes.
All that said, if he ends up losing in November, it will probably be less because of his own shortcomings
than the amazing lengths to which the press has gone in misrepresenting him – painting him by turns
weird, erratic, and downright sinister.
What is not in doubt is that if the election were to revolve around fundamental policy proposals
(what an innovation!), it would be Trump's to lose. As Patrick Buchanan has observed, "on the mega-issue,
America's desire for change, and on specific issues, Trump holds something close to a full house."
On out-of-control immigration and gratuitously counterproductive foreign military adventures,
he has seriously wrong-footed Hillary Clinton. He has moreover made remarkable progress in focusing
attention on America's trade disaster. Thanks in large measure to his plain talk, the Clintons have
finally been forced into ignominious retreat on their previous commitment to blue-sky globalism.
For more on Hillary Clinton's trade woes, click
here
.
Trump's hawkish stance not only packs wide popular appeal but, as I know from more than two
decades covering the global economy from a vantage point in Tokyo, it addresses disastrous American
policy-making misconceptions going back generations.
The standard Adam Smith/David Ricardo case for free trade, long considered holy writ in Washington,
has in the last half century become ludicrously anachronistic.
Smith based his intellectual edifice on the rather pedestrian observation that rainy England
was good at raising sheep, while sunny Portugal excelled in growing grapes. What could be more reasonable
than for England to trade its wool for Portugal's wine? But, while Smith's case is a charming insight
into eighteenth century simplicities, the fact is that climate-based agricultural endowments have
long since ceased to play a decisive role in First World trade. Today the key factor is advanced
manufacturing. By comparison, not only is agriculture a negligible force but, as I documented in
a book some years ago, even such advanced service industries as computer software are disappointing
exporters.
For nations intent on improving their manufacturing prowess (and, by extension, their standing
in the world incomes league table), a key gambit is to manipulate the global trading system. Japan
and Germany were the early leaders in intelligent mercantilism but in recent years the most consequential
exemplar has been China.
In theory China should be a great market for, for instance, the U.S. auto industry – and it
is, sort of. The Detroit companies have been told that while their American-made products are not
welcome, they can still make money in China provided only they manufacture there AND bring their
most advanced production know-how.
While such an arrangement may promise good short-term profits (nicely fattening up those notorious
executive stock options), the trade-deficit-plagued American economy is immediately deprived of badly
needed exports. Meanwhile the long-term implications are devastating. In industry after industry,
leading American corporations have been induced not only to move jobs to China but to transfer their
most advanced production technology. In many cases moreover, almost as soon as a U.S. company has
transferred its production secrets to a Chinese subsidiary, these "migrate" to rising Chinese competitors.
Precisely the sort of competitively crucial technology that in an earlier era ensured that American
workers were not only by far the world's most productive but the world's best paid have been served
up on a silver salver to America's most formidable power rival.
Corporate America's Chinese subsidiaries moreover are expected almost from the get-go to export.
In the early days they sell mainly to Africa and Southern Asia but then, as they approach state-of-the-art
quality control, they come under increasing pressure to export even to the United States – with all
that that implies for the job security of the very American workers and engineers who developed the
advanced production know-how in the first place.
Almost alone in corporate America, the Detroit companies have hitherto baulked at shipping their
Chinese-made products back to the United States but their resolve is weakening. Already General Motors
has announced that later this year it will begin selling Chinese-made Buicks in the American, European,
and Canadian markets. It is the thin end of what may prove to be a very large wedge.
Naturally all this has gone unnoticed in such reflexively anti-Trump media as the Washington
Post . (A good
account , however, is available at the pro-Trump website, Breitbart.com.)
For the mainstream press, the big nation-defining issues count as nothing compared to Trump's
personal peccadillos, real or, far too often, imagined.
This brings us back to Kovaleski. Did Trump really mean to mock a handicapped person's disability?
On any fair assessment, the answer is clearly No. As the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented,
the media have suppressed vital exonerating evidence.
The truth is that Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to the rigid look of arthrogryposis
victims. Pointing out that Kovaleski conducted no on-camera interviews in the immediate wake of the
Trump performance, Catholics 4 Trump has commented:
Shouldn't the media have been chomping at the bit to get Kovaleski in front of their cameras
to embarrass Trump and prove to the world Trump was clearly mocking his disability? If the media
had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the
media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have no story…..But, if they showed
video of Trump labeled "Trump Mocks Disabled Reporter," then put up a still shot of Kovaleski,
they knew you, the viewer, would assume Kovaleski's disability must make his arms move without
control.
According to Catholics 4 Trump, in the same speech in which he presented his Kovaleski cameo,
Trump acted out similar histrionics to portray a flustered U.S. general. Meanwhile, on another occasion,
he used the same wildly flapping hand motions to lampoon Ted Cruz's rationalizations on waterboarding.
Thus as neither the flustered general nor Ted Cruz are known to be physically handicapped, we have
little reason to assume that Trump's Kovaleski routine represented anything other than an admittedly
eccentric portrayal of someone prevaricating under political pressure.
Perhaps the ultimate smoking gun in all this is the behavior of the Washington Post .
On August 10, it published a particularly one-sided account by Callum Borchers. When someone used
the reader comments section to reference the alternative Catholics 4 Trump explanation, the links
were deleted almost immediately. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the Post 's hidden agenda
suddenly stood revealed for all to see:
This demonstrates that the Washington Post is aware of evidence existing that contradicts
their conclusions, and that they are willfully attempting to conceal it from their readers. If
Borchers and WaPo were honest and truly wanted to report ALL of the evidence for and against and
let the readers decide, they would have to include the video of Kovaleski and the video of Trump
impersonating a flustered General and a flustered Cruz. Any objective report would include both
evidence for and against a certain interpretation of the Trump video.
What are we to make of the various other press controversies that have increasingly dogged the
Trumpmobile? For the most part, not much.
One recurring controversy concerns how rich Trump really is. The suggestion is that his net worth
is way short of the $10 billion he claims.
He has come in for particular flak from the author Timothy O'Brien, who a decade ago pronounced
him worth "$250 million tops." Although O'Brien continues to pop up regularly in places like the
Washington Post and Bloomberg, his methodology has been faulted by Forbes magazine,
which, of course, has long been the ultimate authority in such matters.
What can be said for sure is that even the best informed and most impartial calculation can only
be tentative. The fact is that the Trump business is private and thus not subject to daily stock
market assessment.
There is moreover a special complication almost unique to the Trump business - the value of his
brand. In Trump's own mind, he seems to think of himself as a latter-day Cesar Ritz – albeit he projects
less an image of five-star discretion as high-rolling hedonism. That the brand is a considerable
asset, however, is obvious from the fact that he franchises it to, among others, independent real-estate
developers. That said, it is an intangible whose value moves up and down in the same elevator as
The Donald's personal standing in global esteem.
All that said, in a major assessment last year, Forbes editor Randall Lane put Trump's
net worth at $4.5 billion. Although that is way short of Trump's own estimate, it still bespeaks
world class business acumen.
Another controversy concerns the country of origin of Trump campaign paraphernalia. After he disclosed
that his ties were made in China, his criticism of America's huge bilateral trade deficit with China
was denounced as hypocrisy.
Again there is less here than meets the eye. It is surely not unprincipled for someone to argue
for laws to be changed even while in the meantime he or she continues to benefit from the status
quo.
Warren Buffett, for instance, has often suggested that tax rates should be raised for plutocrats
like himself. In the meantime, however, he continues to pay lower rates than many of his junior staff
and nobody calls him a hypocrite. By the same token, many Ivy League-educated journalists privately
criticize the legacy system under which their children and the children of other graduates of top
universities enjoy preferential treatment in admissions. Few if any such parents, however, would
stand in the way of their own children cashing in on the system. Should they?
Perhaps Trump's most egregious experience of press misrepresentation was sparked when he archly
urged Russia to hack into Clinton's personal server to discover her missing emails. "Russia, if you're
listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said. "I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press!"
This was sarcasm laid on with a trowel but the press, of course, wasn't buying it. Yet it is not
as if sarcasm is new to American politics. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln had a famously sarcastic
tongue and the press laughed along with him. When someone complained of Ulysses Grant's drinking,
for instance, Lincoln rushed to the defense of the Union's most successful general. "Can you tell
me where he gets his whiskey," Lincoln asked. "Because, if I can only find out, I will send a barrel
of this wonderful whiskey to every general in the army."
Then there was Harry Truman, the man who declared himself in search of a one-handed economist.
When he was not making fun of dismal scientists, he found plenty of other opportunities for caustic
wit. After he was presented with the Chicago Tribune 's front page saying "Dewey Defeats
Truman," for instance, he commented: "I knew I should have campaigned harder!"
As for Trump, his wit is clearly a major draw with the ordinary voters who flock to his meetings.
Yet little of it is ever recycled in the press. In the case of the Russia hacking joke indeed, many
commentators were so humorless as to mutter darkly about a threat to national security. At Slate,
Osita Nwanevu interviewed a lawyer to see what could be done to arraign Trump on treason charges.
(The answer was nothing.) Meanwhile at Politico, Nahal Toosi and Seung Min Kim reported that Trump's
crack had "shocked, flabbergasted, and appalled lawmakers and national security experts across the
political spectrum." They quoted Philip Reiner, a former national security official in the Obama
administration, describing Trump as a "scumbag animal." Reiner went on to comment: "Hacking email
is a criminal activity. And he's asked a foreign government – a murderous, repressive regime – to
attack not just one of our citizens but the Democratic presidential candidate? Of course it's a national
security threat."
Countless other examples could be cited of how the press has piled on in ways that clearly make
a mockery of claims to fairness. All this is not to suggest that Trump hasn't made many unforced
errors. His handling of the Khizr Khan affair in particular played right into the press's agenda.
As Khan had lost a son in Iraq, his taunts should have been ignored. By challenging Khan, Trump was
charging the cape, not the matador. The matador, of course, was Hillary, and she was actually highly
exposed. Trump, after all, could have simply confined his riposte to the fact that but for her vote,
and the votes of other Senators, the United States would never have entered Iraq, and Khan's unfortunate
son would still be alive.
Where does Trump go from here? Although it is probably too late to get the press to fall into
line in observing traditional standards of fairness, Trump can make it harder for the press to deliver
cheap shots.
He needs to stake out the high ground and get a serious policy discussion going. The debates should
help but the first one is still more than a month away. In the meantime one strategy would be to
compile detailed, authoritative reports on trade, immigration, and other key issues. While such reports
would not reach everyone, in these days of the internet they would find a useful readership among
an influential, if no doubt relatively small, cadre of thoughtful constituents. They could thus work
indirectly but powerfully to change the tone of the campaign. Certainly such an initiative would
be hard for the mainstream press simply to ignore – and even harder completely to misrepresent.
Eamonn Fingleton is the author of In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming
Era of Chinese Hegemony . He interviewed Trump for Forbes magazine in 1982.
"... Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC. ..."
Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with
the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This
week, Trump announced he hired
the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig
was leading a pro-Trump super PAC.
That man is David Bossie. The longtime head of the conservative nonprofit Citizens United is now
Trump's deputy campaign manager. Yes, that Citizens United.
The conservative nonprofit group filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the Federal Election Commission.
The case eventually snowballed into a 2010 Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited corporate
and union spending in elections, so long as it remained independent from candidates and political
parties. A subsequent lower court decision based entirely on the Citizens United ruling opened the
door to unlimited giving by wealthy individuals and, in turn, the FEC created super PACs to allow
for this money to flow.
Trump was once the candidate who denounced big money and declared his independence from donor
influence through his self-financing. Now, he's schmoozing with big donors and asking for their advice
as he prods them for money, while employing supporters of further campaign finance deregulation.
"It does paint Donald Trump's campaign as not being friendly to campaign finance reform," said
Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the pro-campaign finance reform group Public Citizen.
That may be of little surprise, considering the Republican Party platform calls for the elimination
of all campaign contribution limits
That means that Justin Cooper has full access to all Hillary email information, which is illegal.
Notable quotes:
"... Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices and syncing them to the server. ..."
"... another person whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry. ..."
Longtime Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped set up the private email account that Hillary
Clinton used as secretary of state, was the person "usually responsible" for setting up her new devices
and syncing them to the server.Top aides Huma Abedin and Monica Hanley, as well as
another person
whose name is redacted, also helped Clinton set up her BlackBerry.
According to Abedin and Hanley, Clinton's old devices would often disappear to parts "unknown
once she transitioned to a new device."
Cooper, according to the report, "did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile
devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."
The FBI said it uncovered multiple instances
of phishing or spear-phishing emails sent to Clinton's account, including one
that appeared to be sent from another State official's account. Clinton
responded to the email by trying to confirm that the person actually sent it,
adding, "I was worried about opening it!"
But in another incident, the FBI noted that Abedin emailed someone (whose
name is redacted) conveying Clinton's concern that "someone [was] hacking into
her email" after receiving an email from a "known [redacted] associate
containing a link to a website with pornographic material."
"There is no additional information as to why Clinton was concerned about
someone hacking into her e-mail account, or if the specific link referenced by
Abedin was used as a vector to infect Clinton's device," the FBI's report
states, and after roughly two lines of redacted text goes on to note that "open
source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have
been infected, and information would have been sent to at least three computers
overseas, including one in Russia."
The former secretary of state's email server was in fact a series of three servers used over a
period of time from approximately 2007 to 2015, beginning with an Apple server installed by a
former aide to her husband.
That server was replaced in 2009 with a server installed by a former
IT specialist for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, which was then supplanted in 2013 by a
server installed by a vendor, Denver-based Platte River Networks.
That server, housed in a data
center in New Jersey, was voluntarily handed over to the FBI in 2015.
The report said there was "no additional information" about the email or more about why Clinton was
concerned about the hack, or whether the link Abedin referred to in her email was "used as a vector
to infect Clinton's device."
Following roughly two lines of redacted text, the report states, "Open
source information indicated, if opened, the targeted user's device may have been infected, and information
would have been sent to at least three computers overseas, including one in Russia."
In its investigation, the FBI turned up 13 total mobile devices connected to two different phone
numbers that had potentially been used to send emails from Clinton's personal account, including
eight email-capable BlackBerrys that she used during her tenure as secretary of state. Lawyers for
Clinton said in late February of 2016 that they were unable to find any of the 13 devices identified
by the bureau.
The FBI also identified five iPads "associated with Clinton" that were potentially used to send
emails from Clinton's private system. The bureau managed to obtain three of those iPads, none of
which contained any potentially classified information.
As she transitioned between mobile devices, two people interviewed by the FBI said the whereabouts
of Clinton's previous devices would "frequently become unknown." One aide to former President Bill
Clinton who also helped the family set up the initial personal email server in their Chappaqua, New
York, home said that on two occasions he "destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them
in half or hitting them with a hammer."
"... The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server. ..."
But weeks after the Times published its story, the FBI's investigation found that an individual,
whose name was redacted, used an online program called BleachBit to delete a file on the server containing
Clinton's emails.
The unnamed staffer deleted the files after remembering an earlier request from
longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that changed "email retention policies" for Clinton's server.
Speaking to the FBI on May 3, 2016, "[redacted] indicated he believed he had an 'oh shit'
moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN
server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server
system containing Clinton's e-mails."
"... Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from her private server during her time in office ..."
"... "[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's [mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report indicates. ..."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost several mobile telephones carrying e-mails from
her private server during her time in office, according to newly-released FBI documents on the investigation
into her mishandling of classified information.
"[Huma] Abedin and [former Clinton aide Monica] Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's
[mobile] devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device," one report
indicates.
On other occasions, a staffer would destroy Clinton's old mobile phones "by breaking them in half
or hitting them with a hammer," the FBI documents reveal.
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.
There is a simpler explanation: Trump is hated and constantly vilified by neoliberal
MSM because he threatens neoliberal establishment and imperial bureaucracy. Especially
neocons. That's why they changed party affiliation and will vote for Hillary. They
have found a new friend.
Notable quotes:
"... he is often mocked for having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats
profane food like McDonald's; ..."
"... But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you.
His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state's
sacred violence. ..."
"... Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The
Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood,
has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush. ..."
"... How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama
beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit
it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff
died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the
sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective.
..."
"... How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama,
the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S.
citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen his father
for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner
while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father.
..."
"... From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair , CNN, the New York Times , broadcast networks,
Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley,
and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in this orgy of outrage.
It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear, but again, because of the
cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity, there is always a counter-factional
push-back. ..."
"... Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies
like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like
university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti earthquake
to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's shamelessness
reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence. ..."
"... The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar
speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. ..."
"... In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is a
wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite to
protect us. ..."
"... But peel off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself
a wolf pack that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them crooned about
on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly blow up kids.
..."
"... When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal
sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated
from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the girl
he's chatting up. ..."
Reading René Girard helped me understand why so many hate the Donald.
•
Donald Trump is the scapegoat supreme of our time.
Don't kill the messenger. See, to have a scapegoat is to not know you have
one. It is to unite in common cause with other actors in your community to purge
a common monster to preserve peace and order. Trump, more than any other figure
in our present culture, fits that bill. (Yes, Trump and his supporters scapegoat
other groups as well.)
Having dedicated his life to the study of scapegoating as the origin of culture,
the late anthropologist René Girard is someone who should join every conservative's
pantheon. He argues that human beings unconsciously stumbled upon a circuit
breaker that kept violence from virally overwhelming our ancient communities:
the common identification and expulsion of a common enemy. The catharsis and
solidarity scapegoating provides led early people to mythologize their victims
into gods.
.... ... ...
Trump even viscerally looks the part of the old scapegoat kings who would
be ceremonially paraded before being sacrificed: he is often mocked for
having small hands and goofy orange hair; he eats profane food like McDonald's;
he loves gaudy decoration in an age of "shabby chic"; he calls himself a winner
in a culture where people must offer faux humility to gain status. Trump, who
has repeatedly said that were he not her father he would be dating his daughter,
is even accused of breaking the age-old taboo against incestual lust.
... ... ...
But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are
you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the
state's sacred violence. Let's be frank here: though his speech is scarily
vulgar, the violence he promises is already occurring.
Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The
Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood,
has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings-23 percent more than Bush.
How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama
beat him to it. They just don't talk about it like he does. And let's not limit
it to foreigners; Obama didn't bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff
died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking
the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the
collective.
How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists' families? Obama,
the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like
U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn't seen
his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the
Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful
dreams of his father.
Let's not pretend it is avant-garde to vilify Trump. Everyone's doing it,
especially the cool people, the ones, like us, preoccupied with social status
but hiding it in speech always patronizingly preening about victims. From
Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair, CNN, the New York Times, broadcast
networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars,
Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone's united in
this orgy of outrage. It's almost like the scapegoat purgings of yesteryear,
but again, because of the cross of Christ scrambling people's tribal unity,
there is always a counter-factional push-back.
Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies
like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump's shady timeshare-like
university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary's use of the Haiti
earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump's
shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment's passe violence.
The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump's vulgar
speech holds up to the state's violence-based unity. The one thing the
crowd can't stand is a scapegoat's refusal to apologize for its sins. Look at
how the old victors of history wrote of their witch hunts, with the victims
admitting guilt.
In the popular imagination inspired by the mainstream media, Trump is
a wolf whose fangs will bring violent chaos from which the lamb herd must unite
to protect us. He just needs to flinch and admit he's a wolf! But peel
off the wool skins and you'll see the [neoliberal] herd is itself a wolf pack
that wants to eat you too. Just in a way that gets them
crooned
about on late-night comedy and earns them Nobel prizes while they quietly
blow up kids. Trump refuses to apologize for his rhetoric, and so there
is no blood for the wolves to complete their feast.
I'm not saying he hasn't promised to make grave violence. But look who writes
history: the winning crowd. In the pagan world, Oedipus was cast as the scapegoat
who accepts all guilt for his community's woes. Yet behind the mythic veil,
it takes two to tango in the deadly dance of violent rivalry. Today's myth is
being written by people who use victimism to hide the continuance of sacred
violence. Watch out for the false catharsis they're trying to create in purging
Trump. It will not satisfy.
When Trump says the U.S. should have taken the oil in Iraq, he gets universal
sneers from the established imperial class the way a drunken wingman is eliminated
from the bar for loudly telling his friend to close the deal and "nail" the
girl he's chatting up.
... ... ...
David Gornoski is your
neighbor-as
well as an entrepreneur, speaker and writer. He recently launched a project
called A Neighbor's Choice, which seeks to introduce Jesus' culture of nonviolence
to both Christians and the broader public. A Florida promoter of local agriculture,
he also writes for WND.com, FEE.org, AffluentInvestor.com, and AltarandThrone.com.
TPP: "'It's very challenging to get people
to commit the political capital to move forward when the doubts are so
significant about what the United States will do," [Eric Altbach, a senior
vice president at the Albright Stonebridge Group] said" [
Politico
].
"Organizations including the Communications Workers of America, CREDO
Action, Democracy for America and several others sent a letter to Clinton on
Thursday asking her to make a 'clear, public and unequivocal statement'
opposing any vote on TPP" [
Politico
].
It will be interesting to parse Clinton's next statement, if any. (Remember
that Clinton's 10% base is cosmopolitan, and supports trade. She won't be
punished for remaining "equivocal.")
James Carville: "Whatever weaknesses Clinton has, Trump constantly covers
them up" [
Vanity
Fair
]. Hmm. I'd love to see a timeline that combines Clinton corruption
eruptions and Trump gaffes, if anybody knows of one. Although creating a
timeline like that would be an awful lot of work.
Ready4Hillary
: Think of it this way. If you asked someone,
"Would you like to climb into an old scow full of garbage?" most people
would say "No." But if you say, "Would you like to be saved at any cost
from the apocalyptic flood that is rising to destroy your city?" most
people would say "Yes." The trick is to focus on the second thing and not
be too specific about the first thing. OK?
Hillary
: am I the garbage scow in that analogy?
Ready4Hillary
: the point is, less is more. OK?
"Clinton's advisers tell her to prep for a landslide" [
Politico
].
"Revealing a level of confidence Clinton's inner circle has been eager to
squash for weeks, outside advisers have now identified victories in
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as the path of least resistance, delivering
for the Democratic nominee more than the 270 electoral votes needed to take
the White House. And they are projecting increased confidence about her
chances in Republican-leaning North Carolina, a state that could prove as
critical as Ohio or Pennsylvania." I'd add a few grains of salt to this:
First, Clinton is notoriously surrounded by sycophants. Second, I think this
is messaging, and not reporting: The Clinton campaign wants early voters to
go with a winner. Third, a massive electoral win doesn't necessarily
translate to a popular vote landslide. Hence, an electoral landslide
combined with a much closer popular vote will do nothing to help Clinton in
a coming legitimacy crisis (and could even exacerbate it).
"There's almost no chance our elections can get hacked by the Russians.
Here's why" [
WaPo
].
War Drums
Putin on 2016: "All this should be more dignified" [
Bloomberg
].
Gotchyer
casus belli
right here…
Realignment
"So you think you can take over the Democrat Party?" [
South
Lawn
]. Cogent points. On the other hand, what's sauce for the sheepdog
is sauce for a century-long record of third-party #FAIL. Past results are no
guarantee of future performance.
"Downballot Republicans and top GOP leaders are dumping Trump" [
NBC
].
"[Y]esterday came this campaign video from John McCain, who's engaged in a
tough re-election fight: "If Hillary Clinton is elected, Arizona will need a
senator who will act as a check," he said, all but admitting that Trump is
unlikely to win in November. And McCain won't be the last GOPer making this
'check on Hillary' argument.
"Kissinger, George Schultz mull Clinton endorsement" [
The
Hill
]. Can't we just be open about this and set up a war criminals PAC?
Clinton's 2009 ethics agreement: "I currently hold and will continue
to hold my position with The Clinton Family Foundation, which maintains
all its assets in cash. If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct
and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written
waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption" (pdf) [
Cryptome ]. First, "will not participate" sets a much higher bar than
the ludicrously low "quid pro quo" standard set by Clinton's operatives
and supporters. Second, is it really usual for charitable foundation to
keep "all its assets in cash"? Why would Foundation do that? And why even
say it does? (I'm resisting a joke about "maintains all its assets in Bitcoin"….)
"On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is a big critic of for-profit
universities, attacking them for charging high prices but offering students
little support and delivering degrees of questionable value. Her administration,
she says, would crack down 'on for-profit colleges and loan servicers who
have too often taken advantage of borrowers'" [
USA Today ]. "What Clinton doesn't mention are her close family connections
to for-profit Laureate Education and the hefty $9.8 billion in loans accumulated
just by students at Laureate's Walden University in Minnesota… If Clinton
wonders why so many voters consider her to be graspy and question her trustworthiness,
she need look no further than the tangled, lucrative ties among Laureate,
its owners, the Clinton family and the Clinton Foundation." Graspy.
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has run an unusually cheap
campaign in part by not paying at least 10 top staffers, consultants and
advisers, some of whom are no longer with the campaign, according to a
review of federal campaign finance filings" [
Reuters
].
"[N]ot compensating top people in a presidential campaign is a departure
from campaign finance norms." Hirohito Award candidate, there.
"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" [
Agence
France Presse
]. Ka-ching. And not doubling down. Squaring down.
When reviewing an email from October of 2012, for example, Clinton said that
while she did not recall the message specifically, she described an individual
involved with the communication as "someone who was well acquainted with
handling classified information" and "described him as someone she held in high
regard."
She said she "relied on" the individual, whose name is redacted in
the FBI notes, and she had "no concern over his judgement and ability to handle
classified information."
"... In addition, Clinton said she did not remember a State email going out in late June 2011 informing employees of the importance of securing their personal email accounts in correlation with the upgrading of her clintonemail.com server. ..."
Clinton "did recall the frustration over State's information technology systems," the FBI said in
its notes from the interview.
In addition, Clinton said she did not remember a State email
going out in late June 2011 informing employees of the importance of securing their personal email
accounts in correlation with the upgrading of her clintonemail.com server.
Clinton said she did not consider switching over to a State.gov account, as she, according to
the report, "understood the email system used by her husband's personal staff had an excellent track
record with respect to security and had never been breached."
Any reasonable investigator would instantly understand that she is trying to sell him the
Brooklyn bridge. In no way with her career she can be unaware of such things.
Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the
"(C)" portion markings on an email chain signified, explaining that she thought
it meant the paragraphs were marked in alphabetical order.
As far as her knowledge of the various classification levels of U.S.
government information, Clinton responded that she took all classified material
seriously regardless of the "level," be it "TOP SECRET," "SECRET" or
"CONFIDENTIAL."
"... Clinton "had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home. ..."
"... Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to the FBI's investigation notes. ..."
Clinton was not part of the decision to move from the Apple server managed by Cooper to a [windows]
server built by Bryan Pagliano, according to the report, which stated that Clinton "had no knowledge
of the reasons for selecting it to install it in the basement" of her Chappaqua, New York, home.
Clinton also denied using the server to avoid the Federal Records Act, and did not have
any conversations about using the server to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, according to
the FBI's investigation notes.
NYT comments are just overflowing from neoliberal supported of this neocon warmonger Hillary.
Amazing !!!
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt' officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations in their cases as there is no trophy at the end. ..."
"... So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply. ..."
"... There is something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her connection with the Clinton foundation. ..."
"... If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators. ..."
"... Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the nickname crooked Hillary. ..."
"... The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line. ..."
"... The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their candidate no matter how flawed is that person. ..."
"... IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though it was offered to her. ..."
"... ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies handling her communications. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is ultimately responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter. ..."
"... The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. ..."
"... These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her, who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is supposed to recall being warned. ..."
"... She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified stuff there is, because she was Sec of State. ..."
"... The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are felonies, not just little things. ..."
"... I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries. ..."
"... "But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency." ..."
"... Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can understand that -- not sure I would either. ..."
"... But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home might be a good idea. ..."
"... Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy , deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office .. ..."
"... With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. ..."
"... You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'. On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake. Until today. ..."
Among the other key findings in the F.B.I. documents:
■ Mrs. Clinton regarded emails containing classified discussions about planned drone strikes as
"routine."
■ She said she was either unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.
■ Colin L. Powell, a former secretary of state, had advised her to "be very careful" in how she
used email.
Scot, Seattle 7 hours ago
Until I hear crowds chanting "lock him up" in relation to George Bush or Dick Cheney and
the Iraq war, I'm going to have a hard time taking this gross witch hunt seriously. The
contrast between Clinton's email administration screw-up and the unbroken daisy-chain of
once-in-a-century global catastrophes committed by the Bush administration is so huge as to be
hard to grasp.
Paul, Canada 6 hours ago
Sorry folks, but time to point out what has been missed by everyone as they attempt to make
this a political election issue.
There is no way Hillary or any elected official should be given the opportunity to use a
private email server. Any technology org worth its salt will have its systems and computer
usage policies locked down tight.
Any action by a user that falls outside these policies must be automatically detected and
investigated by the systems teams. Wrongs identified, computer users advised on proper usage,
and corrective action taken to prevent reoccurrence.
The fact that Hillary or any senior elected official can operate outside of a secure
system without automated detection/correction is the real issue here. I expect many more govt'
officials are doing the same, but in a less politically charged atmosphere. No investigations
in their cases as there is no trophy at the end.
So who is minding the computer farm? Government computer systems/policies need to be
reviewed, training reinforced, and automatic incident tracking of activity to and from
undocumented server IP addresses. Automated systems should prevent government officials
through their lack of knowledge from using systems that do not comply.
Hillary nor other officials are computer experts. They should not be expected to be
responsible for this. I would say there is a greater risk in how these systems are being
currently managed.
Peter, New York 6 hours ago
Sadly this supports the Donald's charge about Hillary's questionable judgment. There is
something fishy about her desire to maintain a private email server at her home at the same
time she is working as a public official in the role of secretary of state. There is also the
perceived conflict of interest between this role as the nation's top diplomat and her
connection with the Clinton foundation.
If she exchanged favors for contributions to the foundation, which many suspect she
did, the smoking guns have probably been deleted by now. She was given plenty of time to sort
through her emails to cover her tracks before turning them over to investigators.
Her evasiveness and attempt to avoid FOIA requests have certainly earned her the
nickname crooked Hillary. Even if you don't like Trump, it is very difficult to make the
case that Clinton is a better alternative.
Lois Brenneman, New Milford, PA 3 hours ago
The fact that so many people support Clinton, in the face of her egregious and arguably
criminal behavior, speaks to the fact that a large number of people vote strictly party line.
In their view, no matter what Clinton has done, she is still better than having a
Republican in the White House and, most esp, better than Donald Trump. I am hardly one who can
complain, however, as I basically do the same thing. I'd probably vote for my dog before I
would a Democrat even if it means voting for a flawed candidate. I find Clinton to be the very
pits of all possible candidates, much like the Dems view of Trump.
The bottom line is that we are a very partisan nation whose voters support their
candidate no matter how flawed is that person. If anyone else was heading the Dem ticket,
I suspect that person would win by a landslide in 2016. With Clinton heading up the party,
Trump just may win. Choosing her as the candidate was arguably the stupidest thing the Dems
could have possibly done
Wally Wolf, Texas 6 hours ago
ENOUGH!! Compared to what G.W. Bush did (the facts are known to all) while president and
what Donald Trump did as a business man (Trump University, numerous bankruptcies, tax evasion
and/or avoidance, questionable modeling agency practices, and on and on), Hillary Clinton's
emails are small potatoes. If people allow this ridiculous email situation to cripple Hillary
and allow Trump to become president then they will have to live with the fallout and, believe
me, it will be disastrous.
Joseph, NYC 4 hours ago
IF HRC played by the rules like everyone must, and simply used the State Department
email, all of this could have been avoided. Yet she refused to use her State email even though
it was offered to her.
If she did not do this to cover up her activities then she really bad judgement, and if she
did it to cover up her activities, why did she do so? Either way, she is not a person to be
entrusted with the Presidency. This is what is causing the nightmare Trump to still be
competitive and to be catching up with her in the polls. If he wins HRC and the DNC have noone
to blame but themselves.
gary, Washington state 6 hours ago
Congress asked Bush-Cheney in 2007 for emails surrounding the firing of eight U.S.
attorneys. AG Gonzales could not produce the email because it was sent on a non-government
email server, gwb43.com, which was run by the RNC. No smoking gun--sorry about that.
Over time it was revealed that 22 White House officials including Karl Rove used private RNC
email accounts for government business. In April 2007, Dana Perino admitted that approximately
5 million messages may have been deleted from that server. In 2009, watchdog groups announced
that technicians had recovered 22 million emails that were deleted somehow from gwb43.com.
Many of these messages were recovered from other government email servers.
Clearly gwb43.com was under the legal obligations of the Presidential Records Act, which each
of these 22 million deletions violated. Republican leaders (like Chris Christie, Karl Rove,
etc.) who are now enraged by Hillary Clinton's email server were then uncritical of the Bush
administration and its behavior.
Is this American exceptionalism--hypocrisy, political pretense, and selective enforcement of
laws?
Sam Crow, SF Bay Area 3 hours ago
ultimately, this shows the incompetence of the IT people in the government agencies
handling her communications. As the Secretary of State, how can they not have procedures
in place which would prevent this from happening? Hillary Clinton is ultimately
responsible for making sure her classified communications are secure, and she should have been
asking people questions to make sure this was the case. I am a Democrat but I have grave
misgivings regarding her judgement and handling of this matter.
Thomas MacLachlan, Highland Moors, Scotland 5 hours ago
Having read through these 58 pages, it's clear that all they say is that Hillary is not a
savvy technologist. She made her decision to use a private email system without understanding
the implications of it regarding security, access control, data integrity, or retention. Also,
none of her staff was competent in the technology involved, either. At a low level, perhaps.
But not at a high level, where the architecture defines how all these pieces of the system
work together. It was that area that fell apart and has caused her the myriad of political
problems she now faces with this.
The most important finding is that the federal government is woefully incompetent in
designing, implementing, and maintaining large information systems. At State back then,
the system was full of holes and was very hackable. By comparison, Hillary's system was more
secure, though unauthorized. But you can't have a parade of different administrators or
consultants go stomping through the implementation and expect it to hold together, either.
The government needs to get their act together to provide systems which are actually secure
and globally available. This isn't just a technology statement. The workflows involved and
usage processes need to be well defined, and users need to be trained on them. And the
technical staff needs to show some leadership so that they can help guide senior staff to the
right solutions.
The buck stops with Hillary, but she is certainly not the guilty party in this.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 8 hours ago
These are plainly false statements to the FBI, and so crimes. She did not do it "out of
convenience" but to avoid public records act, and to get more privacy. Huma admitted that
much, as have others. She got repeated warnings. We've heard that from those who warned her,
who were told not to say it again. "I don't recall" any of them is just not credible. She is
supposed to recall being warned.
She did not think those things were classified? She's Sec of State. She knows which
subjects are classified, and many of those were. She knew that. She got the most classified
stuff there is, because she was Sec of State.
The biggest concern of all is that she did this in deliberate defiance of the requirements
of law, the public records requirements, for the express purpose of violating that law. The
FBI just decided that it was not investigating THAT law, and so ignored it. Yet those are
felonies, not just little things.
This is an outrage. It has grown far beyond just a few emails.
EdBx, Bronx, NY 7 hours ago
I am not concerned by Hillary's emails. I am very upset by the refusal of the media and
politicians to address the real issues of our classification system. We have known since at
least the Pentagon Papers, and probably earlier, that the purpose of classifying information
is to keep it from the American people more than from our adversaries.
There is no conclusive evidence that our nation has been harmed by the classified
information released by Daniel Ellsburg, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. On the other hand
it is certainly known that great harm was done by the misuse and abuse of classified
information by duly authorized government officials in getting us into the war in Iraq. The
lesson is that it is more important who we choose as president than how they maintained their
email accounts several years ago.
Also, while we may not have known it in 2008, we should know now that government officials
should operate under the assumption that anything on a computer is subject to hacking, no
matter how secure we think the system is.
chichimax, albany, ny 7 hours ago
It is amazing how much scrutiny this and the Clinton Foundation have gotten and how little
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and the "torture memos" got. Not to
mention the whole sum of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo episodes. Scrutiny of Hillary Clinton, thy
name is petty. Lack of scrutiny of the entire Bush Administration's misdeeds, thy name is
HUGE.
DCC, NYC 4 hours ago
"But Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which has used
the email issue as one of its main weapons against Mrs. Clinton, called the documents "a
devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency."
Wow, the head of the RNC finds that Hillary has a lack of judgment and honesty and is
incompetent. And we value his assessment because
he..........helped.............nominate......... Trump. Yep, his opinion really matters!
MyThreeCents, San Francisco 4 hours ago
Clinton apparently didn't know an email server from a jar of mayonnaise. I can
understand that -- not sure I would either.
But if I were starting out on a 4-year stint as US Secretary of State, it would occur
to me that I'd probably send or receive a sensitive email or two somewhere along the way, and
I'd wonder whether sending and receiving those emails over a private server located in my home
might be a good idea.
I'd probably conclude that it was advisable to get myself a State Department email address,
and use it every now and then. True, US enemies reportedly hacked the State Department server,
along with the personal emails of several top Clinton aides, which may make one think it's
pointless even to try to keep one's emails secure. But it's much easier to hack a private
server located in someone's home than it is to hack a State Department email server.
A bored 14-year old kid probably could have hacked Clinton's private server in 15 minutes.
Kathryn Horvat, Salt Lake City 57 minutes ago
More and more I find myself upset with the poor judgment of the leaders of the Democratic
Party, who allowed and encouraged her to run for president. She already was encumbered by a
lot of baggage, not to mention her loss to Obama in 2008. I also wonder about the judgment of
the New York Times , which engaged in the most openly biased reporting and opinion pieces I
have ever seen.
How could so many seasoned politicians have been so blind?
David Howell, 33541 57 minutes ago
Lame very lame Hillary excuses . But the problem comes from both sides Democrat or
Republican and there lame excuses . From the deficit from the Trickle down economy ,
deregulation to Trade-deal and the lost of jobs . Tax cut to tax inversion .. If we want
change , Then why are voter still voting in Incumbents . The ones that made the problems we
have . Shame us who do.. Vote the incumbents out of office ..
fmofcali, orange county 1 hour ago
With over 75% of the country stating Hillary cannot be trusted, it's important to also
consider the severe lack of accountability and level of arrogance displayed. If she's willing
to take the lowest road possible, voting her into office will be a huge mistake. How can
you have a commander in chief that refuses to simply take accountability and always blames her
staff for the issues she clearly creates?!
moviebuff, Los Angeles 1 hour ago
If this were Nixon - a man I detested, mind you - we'd have empowered Senate and House
committees to look into disqualifying him as a candidate. Did those who still support Hillary
Milhous Clinton even read the article on which they're commenting? Sending the emails
privately, the order to delete, the use of Bleach bit after she was ordered to preserve the
emails, throwing her aides under the bus… her behavior makes RMN look like Abe Lincoln.
J.D., USA 1 hour ago
I've worked as a tech consultant for years and I've seen this same ignorance from so many
people, that it's not surprising. E-mail is something most people use, but it's not something
most people understand, so they don't really get how unsecured it is. Was it a potentially
dangerous mistake to make? Yes. Was it surprising? Absolutely not. But, more because most
people don't understand e-mail, than because of any lapse in reasoning or malicious intent on
her part.
... ... ..
Malebranchem, Ontario, NY 1 hour ago
You gotta be kidding me. All we get each day, all day is more breathless Trump 'News'.
On the front page no less. Each smirk and foible is covered ad nauseum as if it were actually
new worthy. You rarely hear about the other candidate. No policy comparisons for pete's sake.
Until today.
"The newly disclosed documents, while largely reinforcing what had already been known
about the F.B.I. investigation, provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's use
of a private email system, which has shadowed her presidential campaign for more than a
year."
As another commenter said, "There's no there there." It is the NYT that is casting a shadow
over Secretary Clinton's campaign. Wake me when you actually start covering this Presidential
race.
"... The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton lied when she said she had permission to use a private server. ..."
"... she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000. so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual. So why is only her email under investigation. ..."
"... Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities?? ..."
"... After she gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie. ..."
"... So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory. And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying and using him as a defense for using a private server. ..."
"... She didn't recall "all the briefings she received on handling gov documents"? Well maybe she wasn't fit for the job of handling gov documents then. ..."
"... It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd be serious repercussions. ..."
"... I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues ..."
"... Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids and you sheep would blame the car or the booze! ..."
"... The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were responsible for actually writing and sending these emails. ..."
"... James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues" ..."
"... She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie. ..."
"... So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory? ..."
"... If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now? ..."
"... Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings. "The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out any charges against her. ..."
"... Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning Clinton ..."
"... Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses to her advantage. Got it. ..."
"... Our records show that Clinton sent & received thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings. The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average Americans. ..."
"... So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping software? ..."
"... Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more! ..."
"... You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president." Kudos DNC. ..."
"... Hillary's new defense: If you've had a FALL you can't RECALL ..."
"... Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period. http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/ ..."
"... Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining what was classified information and how it should be handled. ..."
"... So bringing up her health issues us an "unfounded attack" but then she uses those very same health issues to cover her ass? ..."
"... We invaded Iraq in 2003 GWB was reelected in 2004, this peanuts compared to that. ..."
Clinton told investigators she could not recall getting any briefings on how to handle classified
information or comply with laws governing the preservation of federal records, the summary of her
interview shows.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the
New Year had a blood clot," the FBI's summary said. "Based on her doctor's advice, she could only
work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received."
A Clinton campaign aide said Clinton only referenced her concussion to explain she was not at
work but for a few hours a day at that time, not that she did not remember things from that period.
The concussion was widely reported then, and Republicans have since used it to attack the 68-year-old
candidate's health in a way her staff have said is unfounded.
The FBI report, which does not quote Clinton directly, is ambiguous about whether it was her concussion
that affected her ability to recall briefings.
- SEPTEMBER 02 2016 -
DONALD J. TRUMP
STATEMENT ON FBI
RELEASING CLINTON
INTERVIEW NOTES
★ ★ ★
"Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about
her private email server defy belief. I was
absolutely shocked to see that her answers
to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to
what she told the American people. After
reading these documents, I really don't
understand how she was able to get away
from prosecution." - Donald J. Trump
The FBI that conducted a criminal investigation into Clinton's email server is serving under
a Democratic administration. The director, appointed by Barack Obama, said Clinton was "Extremely
careless" in handling classified material. The State Dept's Inspector General found that Clinton
lied when she said she had permission to use a private server.
These are departments in a Democratic administration, not a vast right wing conspiracy. The
fact that Republicans try to make hay out of the facts in this case do not change the fact that
Clinton, according to a Democrat's STate Dept and FBI, acted carelessly and was less than truthful.
Anthony Zenkus she definitely had poor email practice. but so did 3 of her four immediate
predecessors at state, who used private email; at least 2 of their inboxes also contained material
later classified. so did Karl Rove, who used private servers while running two wars as presidential
chief of staff. 3 million of the last administration's emails are missing, rather tnan 30,000.
so yes, she continued past poor email practices, but nothing that was illegal or even unusual.
So why is only her email under investigation.
Anybody remember Valerie Plame? You want to talk about compromising national security? How
about the Bush Administration revealing the secret identity of a covert CIA operative working
on Iran's Nuclear Program capabilities??
How about Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby who obstructed and derailed the investigation??
How about the way Republicans attacked Plame who was a loyal employee of the CIA for over 20
years??
Republicans are the true threats to our national security,not Hillary Clinton.
The attacks on Hillary will only get worse over the next month, then they break out the big one,
the October surprise. Everyone that chose her over Bernie should have seen this. After she
gets elected they will start the impeachment process along with a complete cold shoulder to all
her attempts at getting anything accomplished. We could have had Bernie.
Michelle Becker Wrong. The Stamford Study shows without question that the states without paper
trails had her way outperforming the exit polls where it wasn't statistically possible without
some kind of tampering. Add to that the placebo ballots in California, the voter purge in AZ,
IL, NY, and it would have been a much different result. Could she have won legitimately? We'll
never know thanks to the DNC leaks of collusion with the HRC camp, the media, and others. But
hey, enjoy the status quo, your fracking, your endless wars, your corporate influence in Congress.
This is what you wanted. Knock yourself out. USA. USA.
So, she's in great health for opening pickle jars, but not so great when it comes to her memory.
And on top of her failing memory, Colin Powell essentially went public to say her camp is lying
and using him as a defense for using a private server. I simply don't know how establishment
Dems keep trying to cover this obviously nagging problem they have with their candidate. What
a horrible choice between these two awful major party nominees.
It's called mishandling classified documents, and it is a crime. She's not facing consequences
because of who she is and the influence she has. Had it been random Jane Doe however, there'd
be serious repercussions.
Here is a question for all the angry white male Trump supporters.
Republicans control the Senate
and the House. Republicans control 31 states as governors including the rust belt states. So if
republicans are in control why haven't they created high wage jobs that you whine about? Why has
the economy slowed with republicans running government? Why haven't they fixed the immigration
problem? The republican congress can pass a bill tomorrow to build Trump's wall and hire a deportation
force. The republican congress can pass a balanced budget anytime the want? Taxes too high? Republicans
can cut the tax rate to zero if they want. My point is why do republicans want to blame the president
and Hillary for every problem known to man while their republican leaders sit on their butts doing
nothing to solve a single problem. Maybe you need to tell congress to stop investigating and pass
a Jobs Bill.
I am stunned by reading the responses to this article. It doesn't matter what Hillary does,
most of you will simply defend her or ignore her issues. The article clearly states:
The
FBI has concluded Clinton was wrong: At least 81 email threads contained information that was
classified at the time, although the final number may be more than 2,000, the report says. Some
of the emails appear to include discussion of planned future attacks by unmanned US Military drones,
the FBI report says.
Hillary could drive through a soccer field in a drunken stupor, killing dozens of kids
and you sheep would blame the car or the booze!
Here's the thing... all 81 email chains that the FBI claims were "classified" didn't originate
with Clinton. All were sent to her... none were marked as classified... and no one who actually
composed and sent these emails thought that they should have been classified at the time.
The fact that not a single person who originated any of these emails, nor anyone else who
were on the email distribution lists, have ever received so much as an administrative rebuke about
any of these, and Comey testified that there were no plans at all to investigate ANYONE who were
responsible for actually writing and sending these emails.
If you really expect me to take this seriously as anything other than a republican fever dream,
please show me ANY wrongdoing on Clinton's part that involves more than being copied on someone
else's email chain... because as evil master plans go, that's kind of reaching.
James Constantino What do you not comprehend about "classified at the time" you just proved
Tom Johnson correct when he stated " It doesn't matter what Hillary does, most of you will simply
defend her or ignore her issues"
She set up a private server in her house, used that server to exchange classified materials
and then claims a loss of memory of briefings to safeguard those materials after her term was
over at State to explain the erasure of thousands of emails. I'm no Trump fan but this is just
as bad as Nixon's white house tapes. This is why I voted for Bernie.
So Hillary couldn't remember security briefings she received in 2009 because of a concussion
she received in 2012? This doesn't pass the laugh test. Nothing is every her responsibility and
she has never ever done anything wrong. Is the concussion still impacting her memory?
Since I'm sure you won't believe me from over in your fact free world, here is the exact quote
from the Reuter's article: "Clinton said she received no instructions or direction regarding the
preservation or production of records from (the) State (Department) during the transition out
of her role as Secretary of State in 2013.
"However, in December of 2012, Clinton suffered a
concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot (in her head). Based on her doctor's
advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing
she received," the report said.
Whether she intended to use a private server and/or was briefed about the Department's policies
and procedures is one thing. Surely the State Department has records of whether HRC was briefed
or not and the main question is whether she then decided not to comply.
If the globalist media wasn't bought, they would have such information in a few days from
deciding to find such information which should be available. I have worked for government departments
before not only are policies and procedures issued to you and/or read out to you, you are also
required to sign on the dotted line that you have understood them. Whats happening around HRC
is just a shameful cover-up and surely the people know it by now?
Actually she should have been briefed when she was the FIrst Lady..and then again when she was
a senator..and then again when she was secretary of state.
Yes, this is someone we want to be President. Someone who can't rememeber security breifings.
"The extraordinary disclosure was made as the FBI published details of its agents' interview with
the former secretary of state which was conducted days before the agency's director ruled out
any charges against her.
Agents noted that Clinton could not recall being trained to handle classified materials as
secretary of state, and had no memory of anyone raising concerns about the sensitive information
she received at her private address.
The Democratic presidential nominee also 'did not recall receiving any emails she thought should
not be on an unclassified system,' the FBI's report declared.
She did not recall all of the briefings she received on handling sensitive information as she
made the transition from her post as secretary of state, due to a concussion she suffered in 2012."
Nodens Caedmon
"Couldn't recall all briefings on preserving documents."
Who needs to remember security briefings
definitely not someone running for president.
Why even mention the concussion? She can't remember more than 10% of her briefings even if she
is far above average, she would have to review the notes to jog her memory for even partial recall
as everyone must do when asked to testify about events like this.
With the number of briefings
and variety of subjects, her memory is the least useful way to recreate those meetings, with or
without a concussion, if ten people at the meetings recounted their memories, it would sound like
ten different meetings, the notes and minutes are the only reliable sources.
For some important decisions, she might remember quite a bit but there are natural limits to
memory that are quite severe unless you have unique innate skills.
Queue health rumors again(Re: concussion). Also, I like how the I don't recall defense worked
just fine for regean and Iran contra, but republicans don't apply the same standard when concerning
Clinton
Nancy Gilbert
Awww. I see.. She's in perfect health but when it is convenient she will use her illnesses
to her advantage. Got it.
Obviously the powers that be want Hillary. That's why we've got a choice between her and trump.
As bad as she is, she looks like a saint next that madman. Ha! For now on I will be sitting next
to the overweight peeps. That way I will look slim.
From Wikileaks: Note on Clinton FBI report: Our records show that Clinton sent & received
thousands of cables with "(C)" paragraph classification markings.
The FBI report, although not fatal for Democratic loyalists but I think it is devastating to average
Americans.
So, what about the bit where she claimed she turned over ALL work-related e-mails, yet we
keep finding ones that weren't turned over, and even more that were deleted with specialty wiping
software?
Mani Rand
Wow! this is so damaging! cant' remember anything , lost so many phones and didn't know how
to read a classified documents! She is unfit to run a lemonde stand! With all her handlers and
executive assistance and Huma for 24/7, you would think she will know more!
Now let's watch all the Libs quantify all of this LOL. She could run naked through Times Square
and the Huffpos would somehow justify her actions as bold and showing off her leadership capabilities
You can all sleep good tonight. Once all your children die in the wars she wants to continue
she will say, "in hindsight, I regretted using bombs on all those innocent kids while president."
Kudos DNC.
Holy crap, - Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that FBI
Director James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. Clinton told
the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could
only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes
stated. Hillary Clinton told the FBI she did not recall all of the briefings she received due
to a concussion she suffered in 2012. This woman is unfit period.
http://www.cnn.com/.../hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/
Kat Hathaway - Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she lacked recollection of key events. She
said she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal
records or handling classified information," according to the FBI's notes of their July 2 interview
with Clinton. The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides determining
what was classified information and how it should be handled.
"We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she'd surrendered
every single government business-related email upon the State Department's
request" [
New
York Post
].
This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy
thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved
government business - some of it highly sensitive and significant (such
as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered
but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government
records to one's own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if
no classified information is involved.
I rarely find myself agreeing with a
National Reviewcolumnist
writing in the New York Post, but "converting government records to one's
own use and destroying them":
Yes, exactly
.
Just scanned through the report – there's a whole lot that Clinton didn't
recall. She also said that she relied on the judgment of the people that sent
her emails, when it came to the proper handling of classified material. So, in
other words, this detail-oriented policy wonk couldn't remember anything about
this and besides, it's somebody else's fault if classified information was
handled improperly.
I still have a hard time understanding why people find her dishonest.
CLINTON was not involved in the decision to move from the Apple server
managed by JUSTIN COOPER to a server built by BRYAN PAGLIANO. Therefore,
CLINTON had no knowledge of the reasons for selecting to install it in
the basement of CLINTON's New York residence.
When Clinton had technical issues with her email account, she
contacted COOPER to resolve the issues. She could not recall ever
contacting PAGLIANO for technical support.
Brazen, brazen lies. Compare:
Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department IT specialist who managed
Hillary Clinton's private email server, was hired by the State Department
as a political appointee. Pagliano had previously worked as an IT
director for Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
[Pagliano] was ultimately involved in setting up Clinton's email
server at her home in Chappaqua, New York, and maintained it while
working at the State Department.
The Clinton campaign says he was paid
separately by the Clintons for all work on the server during that time.
Pagliano was a former Clinton campaign staffer, shoehorned into State as
a Clinton political appointee, separately paid
by the Clintons
to set
up a server
in their house
… but
Hillary never even talked to him
,
so she claims. Here is a photo of Pagliano posing with Hillary, as she
remained mute:
Needless to say, given Pagliano's immunized testimony to the FBI, plenty
of evidence is available to indict Hillary for lying to the FBI, totally
aside from her premeditated federal records crimes.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the picture of
Pagliano and Clinton. He must have attended one of those $5,000 a plate
dinners which entitles you to a quick photo in the reception line. You
can't possibly expect her to remember all of the people who have anted up
for one of those!
I just want to point out that the release of this on a Friday before a 3
day weekend is simply a coincidence and has absolutely nothing to do with
trying to "throw shade" or diminish the impact of the release. I mean there
are people who posit that things are released on Friday for news management
purposes. Poppycock says I – PURE COINCIDENCE. When have the Clintoons ever
done something like that????
I just do this because there are a lot of cynical people at NC who might
ponder if the FBI is in cahoots with Hillary and does this to in some way to
try and lessen the newsworthiness of this release, or simply out of a
bureaucratic self protection instinct because it might show the
investigation of the FBI was less than stellar…
I am so glad I'm not cynical…
"... According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor "exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public internet. ..."
An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks
accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.
The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of
hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which
originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.
The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released
report
on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.
According to the bureau's review of server logs, someone accessed an
email account on Jan. 5, 2013, using three IP addresses known to serve as Tor
"exit nodes" - jumping-off points from the anonymity network to the public
internet.
The owner of the account, whose name is redacted in the report, said she was
"not familiar with nor [had] she ever used Tor software."
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe others want
to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
–
More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that
enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental and worker
protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at
the behest of corporate donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media
manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to
benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
Really enjoyed Atrios easy-breezy
summation
of Clinton Foundation / State Department skullduggery…
"…a bit unseemly in that way that the sausage factory is a bit gross, but it
basically seems to fall in 'this is how things work' territory as far as I can
tell…"
Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the Clinton
Foundation but was the Bush Foundation or the Rubio Foundation or…would this
still be just be the way things work? I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on the
money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the double
standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at Eschaton,
and I'm sorry to say with him as well.
Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that corruption
is the norm and there is nothing to be done about it. So unless you are
willing to shut up about supposed misdeeds of all elected officials and
political candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the
f*ck over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.
And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once the
subject is out is out of the tribe.
I can understand the "it's OK when
our people
do it" double
standard. Family/tribe/team, we are all trained to do that. What I don't
understand is how one could ever arrive at Clinton Foundation = our
people prerequisite to applying it in this instance. WT actual F?
I think you are coming at this from far too realistic a point of
view. You aren't looking at this as the Foundation is a tool, like a
speech or a fundraiser, in order to provide
wealthy
worthy
individuals/groups/corporations/nations a means to expedite access to
the government official, in this case Clinton. You think of it as a
false charity. But for the greasing the wheels is normal operating
procedure, what this was was a gift to open more avenues for the
wheels to be greased. It's up to you…or me…or even the people of Flint
among others to use that opportunity.
Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the
Clinton War With Russia
but was the
Bush War With Iraq
or the
Rubio War With Syria
or…would this still be just
be the way things work? I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on
the money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the
double standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at
Eschaton, and I'm sorry to say with him as well.
Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that
endless and new wars
is the norm and there is nothing to be done
about it. So unless you are willing to shut up about supposed
endless new wars
of all elected officials and political
candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the f*ck
over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.
And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once
the subject is out is out of the tribe.
Excellent interview. I've bookmarked Ortel's website and am looking
forward to his forthcoming writings. I was not aware of the differences
between laws regulating charities versus other forms of organizations, so
the interview as a starting point was very useful for me.
It has now been 271 days since Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton held a press
conference.
#HidingHillary is a campaign strategy to prevent Clinton from making public gaffes. By
avoiding unscripted questions and public appearances that are not carefully controlled by the
campaign, the tactic is designed to allow Clinton's opponent, Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump, to hand her the presidency through his own self-inflicted wounds.
#HidingHillary might minimize the risk of mistakes for Clinton, but it bolsters Trump's
ability to set the narrative. Under the leadership of Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon, Trump's
campaign is taking full advantage of #HidingHillary, focusing on Clinton's many scandals and more
recently on Trump's immigration policy in an attempt to redirect the political conversation.
"... 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.
"... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
"... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
"... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
"... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
"... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:
The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation,"
and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."
Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait
approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority,
Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.
It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been
doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you
choose as we wish if you will. Go America!
Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting
through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions
from the left.
*sigh*
It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy
than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some
liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your
face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an
individual that you actually want representing you.
They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
"... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race
is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.
Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders'
campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim
Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz
in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.
It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz,
after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman
of the Democratic National Committee this week.
The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political
revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to
Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars
for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of
heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between
now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online
for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.
While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned
with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval
of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort.
The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman
Schultz effort.
The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the
famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence
against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns
this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging,
Sanders' digital firm, as well.
. Rivals and challengers of
the past whether it be the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union have
all fall by the way side in the titanic struggle of nation states and Great Powers.
So I asked Ms Rivlin, hypothetically, how she thought Americans would react if in a couple of
decades to come a significant and visible economic gap opened up between the USA and China.\
... She
failed to see, whether intentionally or not, that whatever one thinks about the merits of
seriousness or silliness of such talk and concerns, a lot of people in America believe it is
happening as encapsulated in Mr Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again". Clearly, a
great deal of people in America think the country is in terminal decline and want something
radical to reverse such decline. Hence their messenger Donald Trump and his rhetoric of America
First.
...Part of what Trump
represents is not only a deep seated anxiety that America is on a downward trajectory this
century, hence his China
bashing and protectionist rhetoric, his candidacy also represents a white backlash against
the increasing and rapid demographic changes in America society. America is on course by the
2050s to no longer be a white majority country. The population growth of non-white ethnic
minorities is over taking that of white Americans. Thus Trump's dog whistle racism with lines
such as: "We speak English in this country, not Spanish!"
At the rally in Everett, Guiliani asked rally-goers to get out their phone & text $$ to a certain
address.
I was shocked, what about "I'm funding my own campaign, I don't want your money." Guiliani
said something about how it is about gaining a big number of people who are donating. Donate $1,
if you want to, but just do it.
I was trying to think of the reasoning behind this. It was certainly counter-messaging. I would
suppose it is data-mining. Many people have multiple email addresses … it is easy to create an
anonymous email address just to get a Trump rally ticket. I thought of it myself, to avoid spam.
But most people only have one cell-phone number. Trump thanked Susan Hutchinson, head of the the
state Republican Party. I would imagine she was asking the Trump campaign to get as much info
about attendees as possible. That would explain why Guiliani and not Trump said this.
There may be another explanation. Clinton and the DNC have been running pretty insistent fund
raising campaign over the last couple of weeks as focused on number of donors as on money. Clearly
this was another version of Clinton's popularity over Trump.
As they are asking for $1 on the last day of this reporting period there could be a desire to
head that one off at the pass.
Or they could want your info, and to head that off at the pass.
If defeating Clinton is becoming more important, then voting for Trump
becomes more necessary.
I am getting more inclined all the time to vote for Trump. A vote FOR
Trump counts twice as hard aGAINST Clinton as a vote for some beautiful
Third Party.
Every ballot is a bullet on the field of political combat.
2020? To pick over the dry bones left by Bush Term 5?
Some people say a Trump presidency would be a disaster. No. We
already have a disaster.
Trump is a ridiculous blowhard buffoon. He's also against more
nation-building, questions NATO/Putin war mongering, thinks the
mainstream media is completely corrupt, wants to put the ACA out of
its misery, and actually opposes globalist trade deals. I couldn't
care less if he said mean things about Rosie O'Donnell.
You know the Republicans could have picked a better
candidate.
Oh wait they didn't do that because their intent was to hand
this to Hillary.
I'm so tired of hearing how "I have to" do things after a
small band of oligarchs chose the candidates I have to choose
from.
I don't have to vote for Trump the buffoon and I don't have
to vote for Clinton the corrupt and I can continue to not vote
for either of the duopoly. As long as you continue to play the
lesser evil game you can be assured the oligarchy is going to
continue to pick bad and worse for you.
I'm opting out of the sick and twisted game the GOP and
Democratic Party have going on and those of you who continually
vote for the bad choices you are given can blame yourselves for
the outcome(instead of projecting the outcome onto everyone who
refuses to eat the oligarchy's dog food.)
The 8-year partisan alternation pattern structurally
imposed by Amendment XXII indicates that it was the R party's
"turn."
Their intent was to hand this to Jeb! or Ted! or some
other vetted insider to claim the R party's 8 years of
spoils.
As the howls of protest and invective from Ted! made
clear, Trump's nomination was totally unplanned. Trump punked
the R party. And they still haven't gotten over their
butthurt.
Oh they left him in place because he is the perfect
buffoon to run against Queen Hillary(after all they sat
and debated whether or not to make him the nominee ad
nauseaum) and he gives the double bonus of once he loses
being able to allow them to wail, gnash their teeth and
fundraise against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Don't
kid yourself Clinton is interposable and will serve her
purpose just as well as Ted! or Jeb! for the oligarchy.
It's Her turn.
This is a game and the electorate are chumps that just
keep playing it.
No matter who you vote for, or don't, the US will end up with
either Clinton or Trump as prez, barring a catastrophic event, eg,
death of one or t'other.
So, you not only have to decide how you can live with who you
vote for, but you have to think about how you will live with who
you get. Maybe it won't be good enough to say, "Not the president
of me."
They're both horrible choices and I intend to prepare myself
to have to live with either of them.
I also intend to remind people that vote for team bad or team
worse that THEY are the ones who force this game to continue by
insisting that only a Democrat or Republican can win.
It won't matter if we don't live that long due to World War
Clinton with Russia. If you think Clinton poses no more danger of
nuclear annihilation than Trump would, then your logic is
impeccable.
But if you think a President Clinton poses a real and
non-trivial risk of global nuclear extermination in a way that a
President Trump just simply would not, then you might decide to
defer "vote your dreams" for now, and "vote your survival" for
Trump so you can live long enough to collect the Big Jackpot in
2024.
Both Trump and Hillary are frightening alternatives for President -
though Trump seems "the lesser of two evils". Hillary is starting to
appear like a female anti-Christ - Damiena Thorn or Nicole Carpathia -
the more I learn about her. Regardless which one wins I tend to agree
with the commenter here who suggested one of the two VP candidates
would be the acting executive.
I am tempted to vote Green just on the possibility the Green Party
might become a viable second party - especially if matching funds
become available. But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a
clueless amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students.
Writing-in Sanders is tempting - but I don't trust write-ins will
be counted or reported in any meaningful way. As a last resort I can
leave President an undercount and register a "No!" vote in what seems
the best possible way to do that.
I will vote. None of the relatively good choices choices offer much
to realistically hope for and the bad choices are scary bad and
horrifyingly bad.
"But I can't get past viewing the Green Party as a clueless
amalgam of underemployed ex-philosophy students."
This made me chuckle, since many of my very best friends are
actually underemployed Phil majors, along with a healthy cohort of
underemployed art historians, medievalists etc.
"... The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc. ..."
"... She cares so much about the veterans, she is going to make sure to create more of them! ..."
"... Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of getting it for free by way of hacking. ..."
"... I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong. I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of terrorism. ..."
"... Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening. ..."
"... Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too tempting. ..."
It was extremely eerie
watching
Clinton deliver neo-fascist rhetoric in Ohio while an alert
flashed across the screen announcing Brazil's Senate's official removal of
Dilma Rousseff.
C-Span claims to offer transcripts, but they do not always work.
Some highlights:
– Hacks will be viewed as acts of war
– the VA will not be privatized (healthcare and education… meh those are okay)
– Quoted Reagan within the first 5-10 minutes
– We need to reevaluate our nuclear presence… to make it stronger. (!#$*)
– We are the best #MERica
Rather evilly brilliant, in the
Report From Iron Mountain
vein.
Terrorism as a permanent, amorphous threat is producing some cultural
fatigue. Good to have a War on Hackery on the back burner, since that will
never end either, and blame can be attributed freely (as the evil Russians
have already learnt to their sorrow).
The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard
vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal
Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc.
Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare
war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud
tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of
getting it for free by way of hacking.
I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental
agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong.
I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of
sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of
terrorism.
Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to
out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem
inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening.
This
27th of October I'll drink a shot to Vasili Arkhipov and make a little
prayer he didn't save the world in vain.
How inspiring and uplifting but than there's "Putin is Hitler" and other
masterful strokes from America's top diplomat Sect of State Clinton. She's
already earned her Noble Peace prize in Obama's tradition so let's
preemptively give it to her now and continue that precedent.
What will Clinton do when she realizes she's picking on someone who can
fight back?
BTW very interesting analysis from MoonofAlabama regarding Turkey's
invasion into Syria is not so good for US regime change in Syrian with hints
this is calculated btwn Russia/Turkey/Syria. Had assumed Turkey's invasion
was quite bad for Syria/Russia now I'm not sure.
The GWOT and Russia are meant to focus the rubes attention away from
the fact that:
-We are rapidly turning into a Banana Republic
-We have no Bananas. Or that 95% of the bananas we do have are owned
by 1% of the population, who use the money and influence generated by
having all the bananas to make sure the government doesn't interfere with
the goal of getting 100% of the remaining 5%.
– Our half-azzed GWOT has totally fooked things up in the Middle East.
Turkey, Iran and Russia are closer to the problem than we are. Doesn't
surprise me that they might cooperate in order to straighten out the
mess.
And if they can make our doofuses in Washington look like ineffectual
idiots while doing it, so much the better.
Looking back…….for a long time, even here in the USA, the US has
always backed the landowners/business owners/oligarchs/kleptocrats, when
confronted by any opposition wanting a more even "distribution of the
pie".
And since they can't say "We are going to war so US Multi-Nationals
can keep their stuff/increase their market share/gain access to raw
materials", the talk is all about "Liberating the (fill in the blank)
people from the (name of opposition dictator) regime.
Dictators turning machine guns on striking coal miners = "Repression
of worker rights"
US law enforcement/US Army turning machine guns on striking coal
miners = Suppressing Commie-inspired domestic unrest.
"Picking on someone who can fight back"
Um, America doesn't do that, we just smash the defenseless ones. And we
still lose, contrary to the Hollywood, media, and MIC myth-making. In the
main theater Putin would smash NATO in an afternoon, everywhere else it's
CIA Keystone cops, own goals, and drone bombs on kids in hospitals.
Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching
for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or
Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too
tempting.
Because we never misattribute hacks (see below)… I was afraid when Ronny
had access to the button, but I'm starting to get really fearful of HRC's
possible access. Saner heads in the DoD (if that can even be believed) might
have throw water on her.
It was saner heads in the DoD who restrained Obama from starting a war
against Syria. I realize many leftists are bigoted anti-militaritic anti-militarites.
That bigotry causes such left wing anti-militaritic bigots to miss some
events and trends of opinion within the military.
I am well aware of the fact the DoD already constrained Obama on
Syria. I actually am a fan of the Department of DEFENSE, yet the fact
that we have a $700B war budget shows there are many in the military
and Pentagon who are far from sane.
So we will now go to war with individuals? Or do we just declare war on
whatever country they're operating out of?
Does it count who's getting hacked? Or what? I know Hillary thinks her
private e-mails are best kept private, but do we go to war if someone hacks
them? Or do we only go to war because she mixed some state secrets in with
them? It quickly gets confusing. Or what if Hillary hacks Bill to see if
he's still messing around with Monica? Does who we go to war against depend
of whether he is or not?
And I know Hillary is pretty pissed that the DNC got hacked, but do they
count? Because a political party is more like a club, and is certainly not a
part of the government. And what about corporations? You know they're going
to want to get in on this fun. Corporate espionage? We'll declare war on
Microsoft at the request of Apple?
We're going to need a whole branch of government to figure this all out.
I was going to suggest Homeland Security, but they're pretty busy right now
bugging the reporters' interviews at the DNC lawsuit.
To be sure, it's not clear what Trump would do if elected, because so many
of his "positions" are little more than sound bites. Still, here are six issues
in which he is mixing progressive or liberal Republican stances amid his authoritarian
outbursts. That strange brew means that for the first time in decades, Americans
could be facing two candidates with progressive planks on many issues.
1. The Anti-Free Trader. On no other issue does Trump so
closely parallel Sanders as he is when slamming trade deals and bragging that
he, the great negotiator, would push American CEOs into keeping jobs here or
bring them back. Last week, he singled out
Carrier Air Conditioning,
Ford and
Eaton Corp. for moving manufacturing abroad. A week before, he
boasted, "I'm going to get Apple to start making their computers and their
iPhones on our land, not in China. How does it help us when they make it in
China?"
Suffice it to say that Trump is to the left of Clinton on trade deals, at
least when it comes to sound bites.
2. Cutting America's Military Budget. That sounds out of
sync coming from Trump, who has repeatedly said he wants to rebuild the military
and never misses a chance to threaten ISIL. But according to reporters who have
trailed him since last year, he has repeatedly called for cutting military spending
by closing America's overseas military bases. "Donald Trump could be the only
presidential candidate talking sense about the American military's budget. That
should scare everyone," wrote Matthew Gault in a detailed
piece for Reuters. "As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can
build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying
now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive
prestige weapons systems."
It's hard to imagine that Trump will be the "peace candidate" in the campaign,
as a liberal strategist
told the Nation's Greider. But closing overseas bases would be
a hard break from both Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy, including
under Obama, where the Pentagon budget keeps rising and temporary cuts, like
sequestration, are seen as creating unnecessary crises. Here, too, Trump's positioning
could track to the left of Clinton. And unlike Sanders, whose state has an F-35
fighter plane base, Trump has explicitly said that plane was a waste of money.
"Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got
the right idea,"
wrote Gault.
3. Rejecting Big Money Political Corruption. You can expect
Trump will go after Clinton as a corrupt insider cashing in on her connections,
no matter how many millions he, as the nominee, would end up raising for Republicans
for the fall or take from party coffers because presidential campaigns cost
upward of $1 billion. Trump has the higher moral ground, compared to Clinton,
who hasn't even released the texts of her speeches to Wall Street banks or discussed
returning speaking fees. As Trump touts, he's been on the check-writing side
of America's corrupt but legal system of financing candidates for decades.
Trump's stance here echoes Sanders. It barely matters that Clinton has said
she would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn decisions like
Citizens United, which created giant new legal loopholes for wealthy
interests and individuals. Being the rich outsider forced to play along, not
the political insider taking the checks, is in Trump's favor, pushing him to
the left of Clinton.
4. Preserving Social Security and Medicare. As most progressives
know, millions of baby boomers approaching their senior years are going to be
relying on Social Security for most of their income and for Medicare as their
health plan. Progressives also know that Social Security benefits could be cut
by a fifth after 2030 because of that demographic bump, and have proposed raising
payroll taxes to preserve benefits and increase them. Trump,
unlike the other GOP candidates, wants to leave Social Security alone, saying
a booming economy will fix the shortfall. While we have heard that before-Reagan's
rising tide lifts all boats-Trump's status quo stance is completely at odds
with the modern GOP, which wants to up the age when one can start taking Social
Security benefits, create new payment formulas, means-test recipients or flat-out
privatize it.
Clinton
said she wants to preserve Social Security and raise payments to people
who need it most, such as widowers, who see cuts after a spouse dies, women
and poor people who have historically been underpaid compared to white men.
Sanders, in contrast, said benefits must be raised for everyone. Trump's stance
on this issue is far from ideal, but it's outside the GOP's mainstream. It's
neither constructive nor destructive, but that tends to neutralize the issue
in a fall campaign with Clinton.
5. Lowering Seniors' Prescription Drug Costs. Here's another
issue where Trump is saying he wants to do what Democrats like Obama, Clinton
and Sanders have long called for, but which has been blocked by congressional
Republicans. Trump wants the feds to negotiate buying in bulk from pharmaceutical
companies, which has been explicitly prohibited by the GOP in past legislation.
"We don't do it. Why? Because of the drug companies," Trump
said in January before the New Hampshire primary. This is another issue
where he is blurring the lines with Clinton and the Democrats.
6. Breaking Health Insurance Monopolies. Trump has railed
against the health insurance industry for preserving its state-by-state monopolies
under Obamacare, saying neither Democrats nor Republicans made an effort to
repeal a 1945 law that prevents Americans from buying cheaper policies in another
state. "The insurance companies," Trump
said, "they'd rather have monopolies in each state than hundreds of companies
going all over the place bidding… It's so hard for me to make deals… I can't
get bids."
We know that Trump has pledged to get rid of Obamacare and he hasn't said
much about its replacement other than it would involve consumers crossing state
lines. But this is another area where Trump's sound bites can superficially
push him to the left of Clinton, who has made defending Obamacare part of her
campaign and agenda if elected president.
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds
of Americans,
68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy.
Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi
and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit
to doing so.
For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary
for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six
years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper
fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the
opposite.
"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology,
says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury,"
Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise,
compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial,
borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.
"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with
her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing
out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar,
and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing
American lives."
In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been
a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary
of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling
"get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail
for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton
left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained
to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."
These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary
of state. An aide on her presidential campaign
told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like
tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought
the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been
getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."
How Hillary can defend herself from two major and intermixed scandals: emailgate and Clinton cash
is unclear to me. Also her strong reputation of a neocon warmonger represents serious weakness
on any foreign policy discussion. Essentially she can be buried just with the list of her ;achievements".
So Trump is deeply right when he said "It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're
trying to be someone you're not." Cards are on the table. They just need to be played.
"I believe you can prep too much for those things," Mr. Trump said in an interview last week.
"It can be dangerous. You can sound scripted or phony - like you're trying to be someone you're not."
she is searching for ways to bait him into making blunders. Mr. Trump, a supremely confident communicator,
wants viewers to see him as a truth-telling political outsider and trusts that he can box in Mrs.
Clinton on her ethics and honesty.
He has been especially resistant to his advisers' suggestions that he take part in mock debates with
a Clinton stand-in. At their first session devoted to the debate, on Aug. 21 at Mr. Trump's club
in Bedminster, N.J., the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on hand to offer counsel and,
if Mr. Trump was game, to play Mrs. Clinton, said Trump advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity
because the debate preparations were supposed to be kept private. He declined.
Instead, Mr. Trump asked a battery of questions about debate topics, Mrs. Clinton's skills and possible
moderators, but people close to him said relatively little had been accomplished.
...
"I know who I am, and it got me here," Mr. Trump said, boasting of success in his 11 primary debate
appearances and in capturing the Republican nomination over veteran politicians and polished debaters.
"I don't want to present a false front. I mean, it's possible we'll do a mock debate, but I don't
see a real need."
Mr. Trump is certain that he holds advantages here, saying Mrs. Clinton is likely to come across
as a typical politician spouting rehearsed lines.
"... the person who set up her email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header." ..."
"... You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I never dealt with anything marked classified.'" ..."
Monday night on "CNN Tonight," supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, billionaire
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, said Clinton did nothing wrong because the person who set up her
email should have set up "filters and alerts that said any email that came with a classified header."
...
And so you go - look, I was in this business. My first career, my first company, all I did was install
local area networks and messaging and email systems and I had my own personal server in my office
until about 2010, and so I've been through this whole process. And so she talks to the admin who
is responsible, she doesn't know any better, and takes his or her advice."
"I think it was a he,"
he continued. "And it just so happens that he was given immunity by the Justice Department so we
haven't had a chance to hear any of this. But for that personal server, if that admin had done his
job like I had done my job doing the same thing, I would have set up filters and alerts that said
any email that came with a classified header or any of the determined classified markings like the
little 'c' Director Comey mentioned, pop it out, right?
You know, create an alert that says this shouldn't be on this system and deal with it so that
you don't, you know, consume it in this way. But the administrator didn't do it and she didn't know
to do it because the whole time she had a very specific process in place. If it is classified, print
it out and let me deal with it in hard copy, which is why she had complete confidence to say, 'I
never dealt with anything marked classified.'"
"... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
"... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
"... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
"... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
"... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit
prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving
county and their citizens.
As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration;
it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to
allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream
of the crop and selected to benefit the US.
Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios,
limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets,
limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality,
and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult
to assimilate.
But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate
been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class,
who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.
We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random
visa lottery. This verges on insanity.
H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected
by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In
2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian
IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and
recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these
workers.
I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.
Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult
diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final
resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all
those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
"... Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid. ..."
"... The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. ..."
"... The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia) ..."
"... It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable. ..."
"... The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells. ..."
The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole
who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that
would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't
drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees.
Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
(So-called 'alt groups' have been around
since the earliest days of the internet.)
The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing
all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically.
The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject
or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to
occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia)
Ben Groves :
There are a lot of Jews in the "Alt-Right"(aka, a Spencer invented term,
that they need to at least admit). Most have ties to neo-conservatism in
their past outside the desperate paleo types hanging on. To me, they are
"racist", but lets face it, the gentile left can just be as racist and historically,
more dangerous. Trying to be reactionary is just not a neo-liberal thing.
Fabians were quite racist as HG Wells outright said he was. Their vision
of globalism was a Eurocentric world of socialism and those 3rd world "brownies"
were setting socialism back and needed it to be enforced on them. The Nazi's
took Fabian economics and that dream to the nadir.
The problem is, the 'Alt-Right' is so upfront about it with a typical
neo-liberal economic plan. Even their "nationalism" has a * by it. Economic
Nationalism isn't just about trade deals, but a organic, cohesive flow to
the nation. Being in business isn't about stuffing your pockets, it is about
serving your country and indeed, stuff like the Epi-pen price hikes would
be considered treason. You would lower your prices or off with your head.
This, is a area where the "Alt-Right" doesn't want to do. They are not true
connies in the Bismark-ian sense. They want a nominal judeo-christianity
inside a classically liberal mindset of market expansion where white's pull
the strings. That is simply dialectical conflict. Who invented capitalism?
It was Sephardic Jews(say, unlike Communism which attracted Ashkenazi much
to Herr Weitling chagrin). Modern materialism is all things like Trump really
care about. So do his handlers like Spencer. Without the Jews, there is
no capitalism period. They financed it through several different methods
since the 1600's. Even the American Revolution was financed by them and
the founders absolutely knew where the bread was buttered. The Great Depression
was really the death rattle of the House of Rothschild and its British Empire(with
the Federal Reserve pushing on the string to completely destroy them, but
that is another post for another time). Capitalism as a system does not
work and never has worked.
It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going
back and it is getting less and less pleasurable.
The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function
with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will
finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to
hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed
and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less
product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark
and Wells.
ilsm -> Ben Groves, -1
"gentile left" bigotry is founded against po' white folk who are not as
educated in the logical fallacies the limo libruls use to continue plundering
them.
Everyone is so busy calling out Trumpistas they do not see their own
"inclusive frailty".
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that
has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches.
How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone
on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.
"... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
"... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
"... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
"... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
"... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal
and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and
anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the
debate.
You are so silly.
How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence
and deportation.
Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put
up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving
Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into
the corrupt, poor country they currently are.
It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their
feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no
excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living
standards for their people.
Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt
that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.
What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters
(most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his
immigration plan.. *gasp*
It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader
- which Trump is.
He will be an excellent President.
One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico
was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners
and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.
The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater
what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs
to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office
impeachable.
Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable.
That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany.
I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.
So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average.
He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them
that nothing has changed but it obviously has.
"... the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people." ..."
"... Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate. ..."
"... The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. ..."
"... "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. ..."
"... Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years ..."
"... He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'" ..."
NEW YORK CITY, New York - Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as
the director of President Barack Obama's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges
against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long
interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.
Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book
The Field of Fight , Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing
intelligence that did not fit their "happy talk" narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged
the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking
about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others
to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials
wanted to hear-rather than what they needed to hear-helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening
the United States on the world stage.
"The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with 'Radical Islamists,'"
Flynn said during the interview. "And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the
book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life
and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly
Al Qaeda-although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed
and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase 'radical Islamism' out
of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally
and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back."
Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East-only some of them.
"There's a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to
hear-instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear," Flynn
said. "Now, there's a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand
for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the
tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make.
What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of
dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people."
Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama
administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want
to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war
on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.
"The President has said they're jayvee, they're on the run, they're not that strong, what difference
does it make what we call-that's being totally dishonest with the American public," Flynn said.
"There's one thing that Americans are, and we're tough, resilient people but we have to be told
the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It's a lot of happy
talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political
decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that's
why I'm sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really
at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the
intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. "
The Obama administration's refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, "has allowed
an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life."
"That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information
operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information
operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups
that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and
Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right
now. This is the problem-it's a big problem. In fact, if we don't change this we're going to see
this strengthening in our homeland."
Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama
Administration has ignored.
"The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house
in order, which this administration has not done," Flynn said. "We have to figure out how are
we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This
is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this
cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over
the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one
thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years , but I also
say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have
any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in
certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The
'mother may I' has to go all the way back up to the White House."
He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded
Communism on the world stage.
"There's no enemy that's unbeatable," Flynn said. "We can beat any enemy. We put our minds
to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there's no ideology in the world that's
better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the
religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles,
our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution-we
should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life
on us. That's what we did against the Nazis, that's what we did against the Communists for the
better part of a half a century-in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another
Ism, and that's radical Islamism, and we're going to have to fight it-and we're going to be fighting
it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is
we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally
and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we're doing right now."
Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for
more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president.
He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking
out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.
"My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency-that's almost a 20,000 person organization
in 140 plus countries around the world," Flynn said. "I was also the senior military and intelligence
officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told
'hey, you know what, what you're saying we don't like. So you're out.' To Donald Trump, though,
and I haven't known him that long but I met him a year ago-in fact a year ago this month. The
conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say,
'he gets it.' He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision
for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'"
... ... ...
LISTEN TO LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY ON SIRIUSXM 125 THE PATRIOT CHANNEL:
"... With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated wife… ..."
"... It isn't that it happened. It is the timing. ..."
"... Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .! ..."
"... "I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly in my marriage," Abedin said. ..."
"... "But I think it works if you fully support each other." During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time and her husband helps to care for her son. " I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said. ..."
"... "I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be because I have that support." ..."
With Huma becoming a lightening rod of the whole access issue, the cynical part of me figures
this is not an ill timed, but well timed family tragedy with a sympathetic hard working mistreated
wife…
I mean if the mayoral campaign blowup of his career comeback for the same issues… (done on
camera no less).
No, it isn't beyond credulity. I never said he didn't do it. But apparently this has been going
on since last year with a woman he has never met. And unless I missed something, she leaked this.
Why out this now? Other times he goofed and it was public, OR was done to upset his comeback weak
though it might have been. But why now? At some point in the next few days some advantage for
the woman may change my mind, but otherwise it is very convenient.
Read the comments on the little Abedin story, and one has to conclude that our species is mostly
Fokked. I particularly like this one:
Oh for heaven's sake! Clearly the man is compulsive, he will never stop. And he is willing
to risk job, career and family for his addiction. Kudos to Huma for putting the well-being
of her child first and leaving him sort out his addiction by himself .!
Which follows this text from the article:
"I think it's a little – it's often a little more challenging when you're in politics
because your private life, and I think everybody craves their own privacy, and so I think your
private life is displayed to the world in a way that you otherwise wouldn't have to deal with
if one spouse is a private person and the other person's in politics as was the case certainly
in my marriage," Abedin said.
"But I think it works if you fully support each other."
During the podcast, she mentioned she is on out on the campaign trail a lot of the time
and her husband helps to care for her son.
" I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have
the support of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly
can so I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.
"I miss my son but I don't worry about him because I know between this little village
we've created between Anthony and my in-laws and my mom and our families and this wonderful
woman who we have helping us I can go out and be the best professional woman that I can be
because I have that support."
Big Jim Thompson, former US Attorney in Chicago and former Governor of Illinois, got married
to a former assistant US attorney and a child was somehow produced. Little Samantha was, like
the marriage from the gossip I heard and pontificating in the papers, just popped out to scotch
rumors about Thompson's polarity.
The salient part of the tale is that while Thompson was out campaigning with his spouse, with
Baby Samantha in tow, neither parent noticed that the kid was, like, seriously sick, fever as
I recall of over 104 degrees, and some brave campaign worker had to do the parenting thing and
see the kid got medical attention.
Reported that Thompson et ux were irked that this threw the campaign schedule off. Did not
keep him from getting elected… This guy was also on the "9/11 Commission," and has lots of other
notable corruption connection credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Thompson
One claim to fame was obtaining conviction of former Governor Otto Kerner for public corruption,
taking race track stock for helping the track owners get more racing dates. Chief witness was
Marge Everett, attorney for the racetrack corporation. She got disbarred in IL, so Thompson flew
her personally to CA and testified on her behalf before the "fitness committee" of the CA bar,
that she was an upright moral person fit to be admitted to the CA bar. Shortly after, as I recall,
ol' Marge got in trouble for peddling stock and other valuables to the CA officials who oversaw
the doling out of racing dates (ka-ching!) to her new client, a CA racetrack corporation…
"I have a four-year-old son and I don't think I could do this if I didn't have the support
of a spouse who is willing to basically be a stay-at- home dad as much as he possibly can so
I'm able to be on the road," Abedin said.
With Basic Income, maybe she can stay home as well…
"... If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications. ..."
"... But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book, Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are referendums on the sitting president and his party. ..."
"... Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton." ..."
Based on this analytic structure, Trump may not just win the election in November--he might
win by a landslide.
If we believe the mainstream media and the Establishment it protects and promotes, Trump has
no chance of winning the presidential election. For starters, Trump supporters are all Confederate-flag
waving hillbillies, bigots, fascists and misogynists. In other words. "good people" can't possibly
vote for Trump. Even cartoon character Mike Doonesbury is fleeing to Vancouver to escape Trump_vs_deep_state. (Memo to the
Doonesbury family: selling your Seattle home will barely net the down payment on a decent crib in
Vancouver.). For another, Trump alienates the entire planet every time he speaks. The list goes on, of course, continuing with his lack of qualifications.
But suppose this election isn't about Trump or Hillary at all. Suppose, as political scientists
Allan J. Lichtman and Ken DeCell claimed in their 1988 book,
Thirteen Keys to the Presidency , that all presidential elections from 1860 to the present are
referendums on the sitting president and his party.
If the public views the sitting president's second term favorably, the candidate from his party
will win the election. If the public views the sitting president's second term unfavorably, the candidate
from the other party will win the election.
Author/historian Robert W. Merry sorts through the 13 analytic keys in the current issue of
The American
Conservative magazine and concludes they "could pose bad news for Clinton."
If five or fewer are negative for the incumbent, the incumbent party will win the election. If
six or more are negative, the incumbent party loses the election. Merry counts eight negatives for
President Obama's second term, which if true spells defeat for the Clinton ticket.
"... The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger ..."
"... But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard for her to explain it. ..."
The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather
than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds
up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know
about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one
campaign aide put it.
... ... ...
But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails
demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which
leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it's so hard
for her to explain it.
"... The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question ..."
"... What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization. ..."
The media's obsession with reporting every drop of saliva to emerge from
Donald Trump's mouth for the last year and a half, accompanied by requisite
pearl clutching and gasps of offense, wasn't done by accident. Instead, it was
a carefully planned campaign to set the bulk of the American populace up to
automatically discard any criticism of the Clinton Cult without question
,
because the Cultists use the language and connections that have been inserted
into the national psyche as being Trump-related.
So, having made a great fuss over how Trump admires Putin, and spreading the
theme that Putin would love to have Trump in the Oval Office, they then embrace
with enthusiasm the contention of the DNC that their databases were "hacked by
Russians, probably at the behest of government agencies," even though there was
no possible way that could have been determined if, as they contend, they
weren't aware of the hack until just a few months ago. Oh, and it helps if you
believe Russian intelligence agencies are going to hire hackers stupid enough
to all but leave their names and addresses around to be "discovered."
What all that does accomplish, however, is generate the mindset that is
now terrifying in its willingness to completely ignore any and all facts that
the Clinton Foundation is a huge money-laundering organization.
I have
seen people who take great pride in their skepticism dismiss the multiple
articles exposing the corruption as "unfounded rubbish." I've been told the AP
article is "a farce." Point them to articles by qualified professionals showing
the utter absence of any proof the Clinton Foundation is a philanthropic
organization for anyone but the people it's named for, and the dismissal is
abrupt and total.
I don't know if it's cultism or just that people know she's going to be
elected and don't want to think about the consequences, but the vast number of
those who won't even consider shenanigans is appalling. It's all part of that
Republican conspiracy, and that's all they care to know.
Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play scandal is threatening to derail her campaign.
Public outrage follows revelations that the Foundation took foreign cash during
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was
helping Foundation donors get favors and access from the State Department, and
that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was doing assignments for the Clinton Foundation
while on the State Department payroll.
In a letter Monday to Foundation president Donna Shalala, Priebus demands
transparency.
"I am writing to you to call on the Clinton Foundation and all of the entities
under its umbrella to release all correspondence its officials had with the State
Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state," Priebus added.
As I am sure you are well aware, a spate of recent news reports involving
the Clinton Foundation's relationship with the Clinton State Department has
renewed serious concerns about conflicts of interest and whether donors to the
foundation benefitted from official acts under then-Secretary Clinton.
"It isn't just "suspicious." It's influence peddling, which is corrupt
by definition. And there's a whole infrastructure, institutional and technical, to support it." Lambert Strether of
Corrente.
Notable quotes:
"... here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies ..."
"... Bill and Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department, getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. ..."
"... the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who are enriching them in all kinds of ways. ..."
[W]hat Donna Brazile said in that video that you played is nothing short of laughable. It's not
questioned when Republicans do favors for their donors? Of course it is. In fact, it's been a core,
central critique of the Democratic Party, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for years, that
Republicans are corrupt because they serve the interest of their big donors. One of the primary positions
of the Democratic Party is that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court has corrupted politics
because it allows huge money to flow into the political process in a way that ensures, or at least
creates the appearance, that people are doing favors for donors.
And so, here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions
of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies, like Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates and Qatar and other Gulf states, other people who have all kinds of vested interests
in the policies of the United States government. And at the same time, in many cases, both Bill and
Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds
of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department,
getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. …
And so, the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating
all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their
own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who
are enriching them in all kinds of ways. And of course questions need to be asked, and suspicions
are necessarily raised, because this kind of behavior is inherently suspicious. And it needs a lot
of media scrutiny and a lot of attention, and I'm glad it's getting that.
Huffington Post reporter David Seaman terminated for questioning Hillary's
health
David Seaman says he was terminated by Huffington Post late Sunday night for
submitting an article that questioned Hillary's health and for linking to a
Paul Joseph Watson video that's been watched by over 3.5 million people.
In the following video, it's obvious the reporter fears for his life, as he
mentions several times that he's not suicidal or depressed or clumsy in any
way.
It looks like he made this video in case he disappears or has "an accident"
some time in the near future:
Josef Stalin speech, March 3, 1937; In its confidential letter of July
29, 1936, on the espionage-terrorist activities of the
Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc, the Central Committee of the RKP once again
called upon Party organizations to display the utmost vigilance, the ability
to discern enemies of the people, no matter how well masked they may be. The
confidential letter stated:
"Now that it has been proved that the Trotskyist-Zinovievist fiends are
uniting in the struggle against Soviet power, all the most infuriated and
vicious enemies of the toilers of our country-the spies, provocateurs,
diversionists, whiteguards, kulaks, and so on; when all boundaries have been
obliterated between these elements on the one hand and the Trotskyists and
Zinovievists on the other; all of our Party organizations and all members of
the Party must understand that vigilance on the part of Communists is
imperative on every sector and under all circumstances. The inalienable
quality of every Bolshevik under present conditions must be the ability to
discern an enemy of the Party, no matter how well masked he may be."
Dr. Drew was fired from CNN for questioning her healthcare into question.
Deep vein thrombosis and hypothyroidism are a concern for a presidential
candidate of her age. DVT is a concern since managing clots is difficult. NC
covered this issue recently so I'll be on my way.
"... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this.. ..."
"... Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. ..."
"... Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" ..."
"... Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ... ..."
"... How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude. ..."
"... There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it. ..."
"... The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'? ..."
"... The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch. ..."
"... I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required. ..."
"... Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY! ..."
"... That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising. ..."
"... From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." ..."
"... This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies. ..."
The New York Times is desperate for new readers and therefore tries to branch into the
realm of The Onion and other satirical sites. It attempts to show that allegedly Russia
controlled media spread false stories for political purpose - by providing a false media story. The
purpose of the NYT doing such is yours to guess.
The sourcing of
that Page 1 story is as weak as its content. It starts with claiming that opponents of Sweden
joining NATO must be somehow Russia related and are spreading false stories:
As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the
false reports.
Duh! But it must have been Russia. Because Swedish internal opposition to joining NATO would be
incapable of opining against it. Right? Likewise anti-EU reports and opposition to the EU within
the Czech Republic MUST be caused by Russian disinformation and can in now way be related to mismanagement
of the EU project itself.
The sourcing for the whole long pamphlet is extremely weak:
But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence
point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of
the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008
largely to forestall that possibility.
Whoa! "Experts in American and European intelligence" can of course be trusted not to ever spread
false stories or rumors about Russia influencing "news". Such truth tellers they are and have always
been.
Then follows, in a claim about false stories(!) spread by Russia, that factually false claim that
Russia "invaded Georgia in 2008". It was obvious in the very first hours of the Georgia war,
as we then noted
, that Georgia started it. A European Union commission later
confirmed that it was
Georgia, incited by the Bush government, that started the war. The NYT itself
found
the same . All Russia did was to protect the areas of South Ossetia and Abchazia that it was
officially designated to protect by the United Nations! No invasion of Georgia took place.
And what was the alleged reason that Russia "invaded" Georgia for? "Largely to forestall".."NATO
expansion"? But it was NATO that
rejected Georgia's membership
in April 2008. Why then would Russia "invade" Georgia in August 2008 to prevent a membership
that was surely not gonna happen?
Utter a-historic nonsense.
The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar
, is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without
ever showing any evidence.
the extensive cooperation between the New York Times and the CIA with spying as well as with
manipulating foreign news
the acknowledged spreading of false stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq an behalf
of the Bush administration by the NY Times itself.
As Carl Bernstein
described in his
book about the CIA and the media:
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the [Central Intelligence] Agency were
Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times
, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal,
and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA
include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press,
United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the
Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been
with the New York Times , CBS and Time Inc.
Bernstein shows that the NYT cooperation with the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies
was very extensive and continues uninterrupted up to today.
To lament about alleged Russian influence on some news outlets while writing a disinformation
filled piece, based on "experts in American and European intelligence", for an outlet with proven
CIA cooperation in faking news, is way beyond hypocrisy.
Through this piece the NYT becomes its own parody. Did the author and editors recognize that?
Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight?
Posted by b on August 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM |
Permalink
thanks b... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used
to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time...
folks need to beware of this..
Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print. The
Guardian is posting loss in millions of pounds, and that is what I expect NYT to be doing.
"Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" That
seems to be the official US opinion on Russia as expressed by the Clinton campaign, the NYT, and
the other usual suspects purveying official US propaganda.
An amusing thing about the NYT's is the most-emailed/read lists, which are almost always well
represented by articles such as "what to cook this weekend" and "48hrs in Tulsa." This is often
despite the steady stream of heady world events. My take is that most readers of the Times want
to be seen/known as Times readers, but would really prefer to be reading tabloids. The difference
is becoming less obvious by the day.
One small quibble with this: But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008.
. That April meeting did not really reject Georgia's membership. The discussion was just postponed
to a later meeting. It wasn't until after Russia thrashed Georgia in August that the US took the
membership issue off the table.
@3 wbl, "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other
guy!"
That's the answer isn't it?
Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine
=> Yemen ...
How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV,
coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions
post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders
of magnitude.
Don't look at Trump! Don't look at Me! Look at Vladimir, behind the tree!
Ya gotta wanna believe. How many USAians still wanna believe?
There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media
companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially
rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service
to the elite. They will not abandon it.
It's been amusing to watch this electoral season as the Times has dropped all pretense of objectivity.
While actual news accounts continue to lightly pepper the broadsheet, the headlines, article placement
and, most importantly, what falls before and after the fold is so transparently partisan one is
increasingly startled to find well reported and honest journalism.
I remember back in the first Intifada when Abe Rosenthal had Palestinian youth throwing soviet
made rocks while he glossed Sabra and Shatila massacres. The Times was pretty "Onion"y then, but
the political coverage this year makes me weep for my country as what little good left in it chokes
on growing torrents of BS, obfuscation, prevarication and bombast.
The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and
General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like
Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'?
The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt
will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch.
I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage
contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of
the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could
then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required.
jsn@12: do you really think that objectivity of NYT exhibits seasonal variation? Like neutral
to positive stories about Russia between Easter and Passover, and a more usual dreck for the rest
of the year?
There is still difference between NYT and tabloids. This is the most recent article in NY Post
about Russia in NY Post:
Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing
By Benny Avni August 17, 2016 | 8:22pm.
As Americans focus on who'll replace President Obama, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin marches
around the globe unabated, rushing to gobble up anything and everything he can before the new
president...
Are we already in the second of the four stages to victory?
I don't know much about the MSM, and even less about H. Clinton, but what was that all about
with the speech she made concerning the "alt-right"? Who in their right mind would bring to the
mainstream attention the existence of a body of contradictory writing?
Is it the same thing here with NYT? Is the sheer prevalence of opposing opinion from its readers
forcing the MSM - led by flagship NYT - to turn and address the phenomenon?
I could not have dared to hope we could already be at stage 2:
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
--Gandhi
Grieved@17 - I'm going to argue we're at stage 2.5, Grieved. DDOS attacks on RT and Sputnik, 'managed'
Google search rankings, censored tweets, NSA on your desktop/cellphone. The powers that be and
western MSM are having a conniption fit and they are very angry.
Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy
when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer
more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue
by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the
price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY!
Piotr@14,
The season to which I refer is, as I said, the electoral one!
The Times blows (or is it sucks?) very much with the political weather, though regretfully
our elections now blow for long enough to constitute multiple seasons proper.
I've long suspected that light seasoning of truth they sprinkle beneath the fold or deep inside
is there so that when the bogosity of one of their major narratives periodically explodes they
can scrape thin truths from the back pages and later paragraphs to claim the've been reporting
the truth all along!
That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful
in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst
offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising.
Russia invading Georgia in 2008 fits the definition of factoid , as defined by Norman Mailer
in 1973:
From the Wikipedia article
Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece
of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented
fact believed to be true because it appears in print."
This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids"
or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be
challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small
lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer
recognized as lies.
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return.
We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our
condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did
things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's
are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas
to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks
it down quite succinctly:
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not
like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.
Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no
other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given
them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in
return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our
best interests.
...
I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served
two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially,
politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young
people working more?
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many
will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump
this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things
work themselves out to see what the result will be
"... Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will be much deeper and long lasting. ..."
"... In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments ..."
"... Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material, and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. ..."
"... It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. ..."
"... The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives to help women and children. ..."
"... Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to try to hide her tracks? ..."
"... Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns out YOU WERE LYING! ..."
"... If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office, and would either be in jail or minimum sacked. ..."
"... SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal ..."
"... Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street, Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er? ..."
"... No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones. She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over". She lied to Congress about those same subjects ..."
"... She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children. You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are! ..."
"... Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands. ..."
"... Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming, and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying Hillary from the public. Good riddance; ..."
"... Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal with the refugee crisis. ..."
"... I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November 8, 2016. ..."
"... Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation. She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold us out time and time again for her own personal gain. ..."
The Clinton delegitimization project is now central to Donald Trump's campaign and such a prime
component of right-wing media that it's already seeped beyond extremist chat rooms into "lock her
up" chants on the convention floor, national news stories debating whether polls actually can be
rigged, and voters puzzling over that photo they think they saw of her needing to be carried up the
stairs.
The Clinton campaign has deliberately positioned its response as an offensive boomerang rather
than a rebuttal: Don't defend against the attacks, just redirect fire at the messenger. "It holds
up a mirror to Donald Trump and what his campaign is about, and says everything you need to know
about Donald Trump and where these kinds of crazy conspiracy theories are coming from," as one campaign
aide put it.
But the Democrat's team is aware of how this might factor in beyond November.
"Some of the campaign and allies' conspiracies are designed to delegitimize her personally. Most
are simply designed to spread fear and mistrust. And I am sure if she wins, the right wing will continue
to spread these theories," said Clinton senior adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Palmieri is in favor of
ignoring most of the wackiness but warned: "Just because they may have zero basis in truth doesn't
mean they can't be corrosive. So in this cycle I believe you have to call out the truly destructive
theories calmly, but aggressively, and in real time."
... ... ...
For days, Clinton campaign officials purposefully ignored questions coming at them from the Trump-intertwined
Breitbart News about her health, according to an aide. But after Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted
an episode of his show to a Clinton rumor medical panel, complete with an eager-to-please urologist
in a white coat, they shifted gears: a long release emailed to reporters two weeks ago with sourced
debunkings of all the rumors and a statement from her doctor attesting that supposedly leaked medical
records were forged.
... ... ...
Mo Elleithee, who did tours separately as a top aide to Clinton and Tim Kaine and is now executive
director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service, is nervous that the impact will
be much deeper and long lasting.
... ... ...
In addition to the health questions and rigged election talk, Elleithee cited Trump's encouragement
of Second Amendment voters to do something about a Clinton presidency's court appointments and
Trump adviser Roger Stone's suggestion of bloodshed if Trump loses.
Original unedited comments. Red bold/italic emphasis is mine
Mike
Davis
How does one poison a black widow spider? Hillary Clinton is already poison.
She and Slick have been poison for four decades.
It is Obama and Clinton wanting to bring radical Islam jihadists here to America. There is no
possible way to screen them at present. Even HS has no clue how to screen terrorists out and admit
so. Huma Abedin should be arrested, charged with espionage, and mis-handling of classified material,
and imprisoned for a long long time, according to recent email releases. Of course, losing her
radical Islam lover, might be too much for the sickened Hillary to withstand.
Donald J Trump wants to keep radical Islam sharia law jihadists out, along with other criminals,
drug dealers, who would endanger the innocent Americans. You liberals support the criminal dying
Clinton; therefore you support her policies, including the middle-class wrecking ball TPP and
NAFTA.
It's deflection because she doesn't want to explain why her family foundation
takes money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Doing so would weaken her credibility as a human
rights champion. The Saudis are buying access--not funding Clinton Foundation initiatives
to help women and children. We should be scrutinizing our arms sales to oppressive regimes
like Saudi Arabia and standing up for human rights. Not taking money when it is convenient, selling
our best weapons to dictatorships, and then pretending the rest of the world believes we are some
City on a Hill human rights champions.
Thus the dilemma for the gutless Dems, attack the character of Trump while
defending the 100% lack of character of the email deleting, ambassador murdering money laundering
lying under oath criminal piece of shit..
Good luck with that..
Horatio N. Fisk · Works at Writer, Gadfly
Good luck with proving any of what you said;. You can't
David J. Lekse · Indianapolis, Indiana
Horatio N. Fisk Are you saying she didn't delete e-mails and use bleaching software to
try to hide her tracks?
Paul Marston · Works at Self-Employed
Classic Clinton propaganda. Are you HONESTLY trying to say she did NOTHING wrong? Then
WHY is she stopping doing what she is doing IF she steals the presidency. All along Clinton has
denied everything and EVERY SINGLE TIME she has been PROVEN to be a liar! She claimed she NEVER
sent a classified email - you called those that said she did lunatic conspiracy theorists - turns
out YOU WERE LYING!
The sheer contempt you and all the other Clinton drones have for the American public is genuinely
sickening. It has been PROVEN she rigged the primaries - and had to sack 5 staff for it, yet Clinton
claims she did nothing wrong.
If ever a person was so obviously unfit to hold the office of POTUS - it's Clinton. Indeed
James Comey said anyone else who did what she did would NEVER be able to hols ANY government office,
and would either be in jail or minimum sacked.
SHAME ON YOU for doing your Josepg Goebbels act. The innocent blood she is GUARANTEED to spill
will be on the hands of every single person who votes for that war criminal
Bob Rousseau
Pretty pathetic when the do nothing, low IQ Republicans have to resort to conspiracy theories
and lies to win elected office. If their voters werent so stupid and toxic, conspiracy theories
would be immediately identified for what they are; right wing garbage.
Marlin Johnson
Hillary is fit to be president? Based on what? Her accomplishments? Her ability to properly
handle classified data? Her ability to lie? Being beholden to her big donors from Wall Street,
Foreign Countries, shady sources, who made her a 1%er?
Not securing the Mexican border so illegal aliens can continue to flood in to be exploited
with low paying jobs, burdening social service budgets and taking American jobs? By allowing 550,000
unvetted Syrian refugees enter our country risking that some may be ISIS? Or having Bill back
in the White House seeking sexual favors from young interns? Of course you would mind if it were
your daughter working as an intern. And Hillary can launch vicious personal character attacks
against the victims of Bill's sexual assaults.
Wayne Barron
No one has to de-legitimize Clinton. She's done a fine job all by herself! She lied to
the faces of geiving parents, infront of the coffins containing the remains of their loved ones.
She lied to the American people, over and over, about her server and the emails she "turned over".
She lied to Congress about those same subjects.
She refuses to give a press conference where the questions are not scripted for her. She
used her "Charitable Foundation" to sell access to the State Dep, let people like Bloomenthal
decide what decisions she made as Sec State. She panders to blacks, treating them like children.
You Go Hillary! Keep making the case for how unfit for office you are!
Mike Davis
Sure, Mr Trump is not a polished highly trained politician, and ends up very often with
foot in mouth disease. But Donald J Trump single-handedly defeated the totally corrupt Republican
establishment, and ripped the nomination out of their hands.
Those treasonous RINO (especially the warmonger NeoCons) political hacks are still screaming,
and the GOP is self-destructing before our eyes. They are fleeing in panic to the sinking, burning
SS Clinton, as the establishment newsmedia desperately tries to hide the self-destructing, dying
Hillary from the public. Good riddance; thank you Mr Trump.
Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University
Too funny...Hillary hides from the press and the only thing she has got is to make Trump
look like a deranged psychopath. That's all she has. She has already waffled on TPP because of
Trump. She has not been forced to reckon with her own immigration policies or how she will deal
with the refugee crisis.
Not much about terror either. She released a tax plan but that is meaningless piece of paper
that all candidates put out there..you must get Congress on your side and Republicans will not
go for increases.
Then there is her free public college plan. Obamacare is collapsing and voters are going to
see it firsthand Nov 1st (if Obama doesn't delay it until after the election)
Yeah, the wind is behind her(and the MSM)....it wasn't rosy for her at the end of July. We
were told that didn't matter ...but now it does?
Tammy McKinnon · Florida State University
Bethsabe David,
Dems have perfected unsubstantiated attacks in elections. Remember Reid saying that Romney's
tax returns showed he had paid no taxes? Remember the commercial accusing Romney of murder and
the crying husband? (big lie) Oh and the Hillary camp started the birther movement. All 'lies'
are not created equal. Hillary is dangerous.
Trump is not "loosing" (spell check is your friend Bethsabe) He was doing very well the end
on July and we still have a ways to go.
Benjamin Andrew Marine · American University
Doug Perry,
I'm an Independent, I march to my own beat. That said, as a US militay veteran and
having served honorably in the United States Marine Corps, in a term I'm sure fellow veterans
can understand... "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a scumbag." I'm voting for Dr. Jill Stein on November
8, 2016.
Michael Iger
Republicans demonize opponents its in their nature and the Clinton's have been on that long
list of enemies now for decades. We see it too with Obama and Trump's birther charges and McConnell
talking about not cooperating with the President at a price of hurting the country. Hilary, both
as a Clinton and a Democrat, is going to get a double dose in her term of office. The real loser
is the country that becomes stalemated and dysfunctional at the top which then permeates the society.
We have a dysfunction group in this country with some power and until it changes must deal with
it. With Trump's campaign of bigotry and racism that may change sooner than later as the country
wakes up to reality of the mess and its done. With stalemate very little gets done and problems
don't get solved.
Michael Welby · Owner at Self-Employed
Yeah, it is Republicans that demonize. That is why, in Reno, Hillary draped the KKK all over
trump. YOu do it too: bigot, racist.
With such warm greetings and suggesting of cooperation, what the hell do you expect. She may win
the office. She will accomplish nothing. Nothing.
Donald Trump really doesn't have to do very much at this point to impune Hillary Clinton 's reputation.
She has already done that to herself. Her actions are indefensible and all he has to do is remind
people of it and convince the idiots who keep defending her and can't see her crimes that are
right in front of their faces. She has lied to us and Congress, concealed her crimes and sold
us out time and time again for her own personal gain.
"... there's an opportunity for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a whole. ..."
"... "If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to the press," McCall said. ..."
Jeff McCall, a professor of media studies at Depauw University, agrees there's an opportunity
for Trump to draw a sharp contrast with Clinton, who also has issues engaging with the press as a
whole.
"If Trump were to more broadly engage the broader media landscape, he can provide a clear
contrast to Hillary Clinton, who is clearly playing a 'run out the clock' strategy with regard to
the press," McCall said.
"Trump should speak to any and all news outlets and mention during each of those interviews that
he is there to speak to the electorate while Hillary ducks the tough questioning and won't even hold
a press conference."
But a more exposed Trump, McCall said, only works if he stays on the narrative the campaign wishes
to articulate.
"If he expands his media range, but has flimsy or off-target messages, he will just contribute to
the perception that his messaging and campaign are rather untethered," he said.
"... On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. I ..."
"... Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf. ..."
"... Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality of politics. ..."
On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that
is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from
creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id.,
at 150; see also. e.g., id., at 143-144. 152-154; Colorado II, 533 U. S.. at 441; Shrink Missouri.
528 U. S., at 389.
Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference
between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is
not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf.
Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements
can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality
of politics.
It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA. a record
that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions,
lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other's backs - and which amply supported
Congress' determination to target a limited set of especially destructive
"... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
"... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid
consultants. ..."
"... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two
charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in
manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
"... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
"... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
"... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and
power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
"... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
"... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago: ..."
"... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking,
posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the
ultimate win-win." ..."
"... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The
Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly
as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity
of an electron simultaneously. ..."
DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies.
During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes
on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something
to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up.
One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was
completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing
the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.
Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes,
with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign
plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation
on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between
different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.
It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.
Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree.
With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.
–KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no
doubt well paid consultants.
Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented
two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing
decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.
They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.
This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.
The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money
and power. All else is irrelevant.
As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago:
"What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between
the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its
very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized
people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer
ordinary working American women was another story.
She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out
loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing
impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could
put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper,
you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about microlending
was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming
together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the
grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass
every last individual on earth.
Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of
networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual
power relations-the ultimate win-win."
I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking
systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.
The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully
cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who
are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship
to oppressive conditions.
Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections
misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is
Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against
each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".
Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess
The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now
seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the
position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
ilsm ->
Chris G
...
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of
peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into
perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of
peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into
perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?
Looks like they are trying to elect Hillary.
=== quote ===
It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately
damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to
embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are
delusional.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director
of the Council for the National Interest.
Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post: Reader Beware
There's more hype than evidence in the paper's claims that
Moscow orchestrates politics in Europe and America.
By PHILIP GIRALDI
"... Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, neocon, corporatist PACster politician, is unlikely to inspire millennials or progressives ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck. And her vulnerability has nothing to do with the manufactured hype ..."
"... This on top of charges by the FBI that she was reckless, make her uniquely vulnerable ..."
"... Then there's her numerous "sniper fire in Bosnia" type gaffs, and a record of flip-flops on the issues that is virtually unprecedented in modern politics. And if the flip-flops in the primary weren't enough, her personnel appointments so far show she's going to try to go from corporate centrist to progressive to corporate centrist in the space of a year. You'd almost have to be an idiot to lose to her. ..."
Hillary Clinton, a neoliberal, neocon, corporatist
PACster politician, is unlikely to inspire millennials or progressives,
and some version of 2014 could easily play out again. As I've said all
along, Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck. And her vulnerability has
nothing to do with the manufactured hype or the …er… trumped up charges
Republicans have been ginning up for years now. In fact, in some strange
way, they may help Clinton, by discrediting some of the legitimate issues
that could yet dog her.
The emails – a self-inflicted tragedy of almost
Shakespearean proportions – won't go away, and now they suggest a pattern of
appointments with supporters of the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of
State that was, at best, inappropriate, at worst, illegal. This on top
of charges by the FBI that she was reckless, make her uniquely vulnerable
to attack ads.
Then there's her numerous "sniper fire in Bosnia"
type gaffs, and a record of flip-flops on the issues that is virtually
unprecedented in modern politics. And if the flip-flops in the primary
weren't enough, her personnel appointments so far show she's going to try to
go from corporate centrist to progressive to corporate centrist in the space
of a year. You'd almost have to be an idiot to lose to her.
... ... ...
But if Trumps' new team manages to reel him in, and
formulate a coherent attack on Clinton, all bets are off.
"... Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII. ..."
"... Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve. ..."
If Clinton gets elected, she will be under investigation prior to the inauguration. The Republicans
will use their hold on the house to start several investigations on November 9.
However, the GOP (continuing a party tradition) will cruise right past several true issues,
and lock onto the one thing they believe will hold the most shock value. This will turn out to
not be provable, or not be all that interesting to anyone but die-hard GOP supporters, and she
will exit the investigations as powerful, if not more so, than before.
There are plenty of reasons to investigate the Clinton machine, but if you expect this clown
show to do it competently I have a bridge to sell you…
No this one is backfiring already as most of the donors were people HRC would have met anyway,
including Nobel Peace winners! and the 89 out of 154 people has not been released. And the article
does not note any mischief but that there were meetings!
Or that there are a ton of other government officials have spouses that run well run charities.
Matt Yglesias has de-bunked this one a lot and my guess disappears relatively quickly.
This is as worthless evidence as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to
play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a
debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII.
The economy will continue to hollow out due to central bank hubris, government stimulus, and
non-free trade deals. Income inequality will get worse. The middle class will continue to shrink.
After leaving office, Bill Clinton could have devoted his energies to Habitat for Humanity (like
Jimmy Carter) or thrown his energies into helping an existing organisation (like the Bill & Melinda
Gates foundation). He didn't, because he wanted the "fruits" of his philanthropic work to accrue
to him and his family. And so it is not unreasonable to ask exactly what those fruits are, especially
those gained while Hillary Clinton was serving as the nation's chief diplomat.
Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead
no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve.
Problems are undeniable, but severity of the condition can be assessed only by qualified doctors
after studying all medical record. Which should be a requred stp for all US presidential candidates.
CNN presstitutes do disservice to the nation downplaying the concerns.
Notable quotes:
"... So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all know the answer to that... ..."
... reminds Americans about Trump's self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid
serving in the Vietnam War Second, this baseless attack on Clinton's health reeks of the same conspiracy
theory junk we have heard before from him
...Even the way Trump's cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani
recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare:
...
CNN User
So, will Hillary accept Trump's challenge to release her medical records? I think we all
know the answer to that...
Just like showing up for a press conference, she just has too much to lose by being open with
voters.;
...prominent medical practitioners who have expressed sincere concern. The most prominent of which
is Dr. Bob Lahita, the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center
who has frequently been called on to opine for health on CBS, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, and local news outlets.
"This
is a very unusual story with Hillary," said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots that Hillary's
been diagnosed with in the past. "The fact that she's having these clots and she's had two bouts
of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least."
"I don't think it's a conspiracy," said Lahita when asked if questions about Hillary's health
are the musings of far-right agitators or a legitimate question. "You go back to the history of our
presidents and we've had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who've concealed their health during
their campaigns." "It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow
Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time," he continued. "So we have issues here and
I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians
review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the poll."
Donald Trump is challenging Hillary Clinton to release her "detailed" medical records and put
the questions surrounding her health status to rest. "I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary
and myself, should release detailed medical records," Trump tweeted Sunday evening.
"I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?" he said.
Clinton so far has refused to release her detailed medical history.
It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily
or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities
of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
Notable quotes:
"... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
"... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
"... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
"... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
"... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
"... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
"... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
"... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
"... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
"... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
"... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
"... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
"... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
"... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
"... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
"... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
"... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
"... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
"... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
"... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
"... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
"... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
"... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
"... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
"... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best
thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little
Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.
So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon
claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City
and the consequences have been deplorable.
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks
the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the
neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing
would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the
safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir
of Kuwait.
The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled
their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait
was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899
for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a
straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from
the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably
opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side
of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported
1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis
and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.
At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad
debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and
religious fanaticism.
They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge
of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American
(crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the
tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic
surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.
Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus
operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective
leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave
of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the
planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.
And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.
Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the
world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute.
The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity,
and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically
undermined national security.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the
War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in
the middle east and beyond.
Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA
and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan,
had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our
way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their
attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed
against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in
the Persian Gulf in 1991.
Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that
wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability
from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed
the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.
The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was
wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's
satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks
on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front
as cannon fodder.
Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical
transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department
was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back
in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.
Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime
as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors
in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret
document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war
myth.
To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable
foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.
Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime
minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing
The Realm".
Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and
launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of
historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative
policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential
threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons
back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.
After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government
began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because
the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right
out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare
State.
There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity
to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases
and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.
Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan
era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan
proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war
machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.
The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the
American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex.
At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's
purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and
the needs of veterans of past wars.
Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards
of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet
Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the
planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's
far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted
with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests
had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed
states and economic rubble.
The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its
foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate
for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it
appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed
in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic
coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.
That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial
crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up
that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.
Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been
transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets
no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and
growth.
Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where
business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund
stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive
options.
Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century
has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not
only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles
Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.
And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.
Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White
House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims,
refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out
contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is
just plain nuts.
But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created
celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign
Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers
they coddle.
So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and
political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous
mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself
or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession
already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.
But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that
Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit
the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that
the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either
a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally
right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction
of a stable regime in Libya.
Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim
that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the
time of the next election they will have it released anyway.
Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with
guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on
day one in office.
Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold
war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO
and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.
At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore
the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf
out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where
governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.
He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal
zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian
swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank
monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.
When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer,
he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable....
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic
thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect
that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone.
... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect
than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing
notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious
kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from
men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their
worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the
men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even
about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced,
well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently,
like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be
on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely,
but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken
Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers
the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced
or dismantled that easily.
The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and
removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable
of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to
control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself
due to being hollowed out :)
As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and
only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This
is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.
I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century"
(PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American
people to go to war.
So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power.
This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because
the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.
There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran.
There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled
the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP
oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and
the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began
again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one)
Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted
his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap
is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil.
IMO
BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.
We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to
the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that
Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed.
I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted
Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended
that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if
someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about
the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.
SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that
was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica"
safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign
policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.
There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.
You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the
1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious
tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers,
on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King
Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed
to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding,
stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate
threat from Saddam was over.
When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics
who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community.
More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and
elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government
rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.
As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot.
The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons
has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.
In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist
regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control
the perceived enemies of Capitalism.
Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our
closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.
We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's
for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly
expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of
mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.
Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies
on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam
was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving
as his special envoy to the middle east.
@lloydholiday I lived
in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the
deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives
a major headache, much like Europe.
The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and
appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities
(my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue.
They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.
@lloydholiday
Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his
idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may
have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests
from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon
won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man
toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.
As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and
their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who
wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous
game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans
as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed
by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant
today in the middle east and beyond.
Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be
PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.
If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both
parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid
of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding
Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt -
ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians
can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.
@bill5 What I never
hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would
have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to
power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the
islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border
would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell
the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying
about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.
@FreeOregon It will
shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years
of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment,
centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled
by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.
All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed
for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and
liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going
to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was
Trump from here on in!
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.
The two sources of her problems are beginning to merge much as two weather depressions might
collide and become a hurricane. One is the already well-trodden matter of her use of a private
email server while Secretary of State. The other relates to the Clinton Foundation and whether
donors received preferential access to her while she served in that post.
Two bombs dropped on the Clinton campaign at once on Monday. First it emerged that the FBI has
collected and delivered to the State Department almost 15,000 new emails not previously seen and
a federal judge ordered the department to accelerate their release to the public. Meanwhile, a
conservative group called Judicial Watch released details of still more emails detailing exactly
how donors to the foundation set about trying to get Ms Clinton's attention.
... ... ...
Questions have been swirling for weeks about whether or not Ms Clinton was drawn into giving
special favours to some of her husband's pals in return for their giving generously to the
charitable foundation he set up after leaving the presidency – a pay and play arrangement. On
Monday, Judicial Watch unveiled details that showed exactly how that might have happened thanks
to emails it had accessed through the courts sent to and from Huma Abedin, a close Clinton
confidante and her deputy chief of staff during her four years at the State Department.
... ... ...
In attempt to forestall the trouble that is already upon his wife, Mr Clinton announced this
week that should she win the presidency, several things will change at his Foundation. First and
foremost it would cease to take money from any foreign governments and donors and only from
US-based charities and individuals. He would also step down from the foundation entirely and
cease personally to raise funds for it.
...many voters are simply afraid that with Ms Clinton in the White House the whole tawdry
cycle will just start all over again and nothing else with get done in Washington
It was only one in a long parade of late-August fundraisers Ms Clinton has attended, but it
stands out for the generosity required of those who attended. The price of admission for the
20-odd guests who obliged was a stunning $200,000. That was double the $100,000 charged for
guests who mingled recently with Ms Clinton in Omaha at the home of Susan Buffett, the daughter
of Warren Buffett, the veteran investment oracle.
... ... ...
As of Monday, she and Mr Kaine had harvested no less than $32 million for the Hillary Victory
Fund, which will be distributed to her campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state
parties. A lot of was raised in last week as Ms Clinton hopscotched from party to party on
Martha's Vineyard and Cape Code in Massachusetts.
"... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
"... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
"... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
"... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.
"...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President
Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."
Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme
moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing
knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?
@Noirette Pt1
Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though,
how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice
back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does
Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political
theatre.
The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to
be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be
"behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia
outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.
Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations
carte blanche to bullshit the public.
Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the
public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones
until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.
I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian
government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart
from CNN:
For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like
every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.
You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most
likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely
to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part
of the natural order.
The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now
happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under
any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage
and unlimited oligarchy.
The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli
media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on
Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another
in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air
raids over the Golan Heights."
It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB
were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense
missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain
west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix
on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli
aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting.
Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering
into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.
Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort
to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami
li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly
shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.
"... "Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous." ..."
"... She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval, ..."
"... Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to "pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. ..."
"... He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said. ..."
"... Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red, or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership. ..."
US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's attempt to falsely portray her Republican
opponent Donald Trump as a racist extremist is absurd, silly and dangerous, former US Department
of State diplomat Jim Jatras told Sputnik.
On Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
told Fox News in an interview that Clinton's campaign was full of anti-Russia hysteria as the Democrats
were trying to undermine the campaign of their opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump.
"Of course Julian Assange is right. Hillary Clinton's harangue depicting Donald Trump as
the enabler of some insidious 'Alt Right' movement whose Grand Dragon is Vladimir Putin is too
absurd for words," Jatras said on Friday. "It would be just silly if it weren't so dangerous."
Jatras said he agreed with Assange's assessment that Clinton's increasingly wild charges against
Trump were not based on any reality. "She should get some kind of tinfoil hat award for the finest
piece of political paranoia totally divorced from facts in all of American history," Jatras said.
Hillary Clinton's Anti-Russian Campaign May BackfireJatras also pointed out the falsity of Clinton's
related claim that former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who endorsed Trump this week
was a racist. "Take her attack on Nigel Farage. Evidently now it is now 'racist' to believe citizens
are shareholders of their own country and have a right to decide who gets in and who doesn't, and
that dangerous people should be excluded," Jatras argued.
However, Jatras expressed skepticism as to how effective Clinton's racist and Russophobic attacks
would prove to be.
"She and her surrogates have been banging the 'Kremlin agent' drum for some time. But when
Trump asks rock-ribbed GOP [Republican] crowds if it wouldn't be a great thing to get along with
Russia and team up with Moscow to fight ISIS [Islamic State], he gets thunderous approval,"
Jatras observed.
Jatras suggested that Clinton's latest attacks on Trump as an alleged racist were meant to
distract attention from the latest WikiLeaks documents exposing the leaked information related to
"pay to play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
He also argued that Clinton's attacks were meant to distract pubic attention from her own
record of controversy and alleged corruption. "Any American worthy of the name hates her and the
whole rotten Deep State she fronts for: the profiteers on endless wars, the globalist corporations
that dump their American workers to import their foreign-made goods duty free and the driving down
of wages due to a glut of imported foreign labor," he said.
Jatras suggested that these policies that Clinton as secretary of state and her husband, President
Bill Clinton had implemented and supported were far more worthy of hate than the false accusations
she was throwing against Trump. "Those are things all Americans, whether white, black, brown, red,
or yellow should hate, and Hillary right along with them," he concluded. Jatras also formerly served
as adviser to the Senate Republican leadership.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., argued on Thursday that the FBI failed to asked Hillary
Clinton the right questions during its interview last month, if it was truly
trying to decide her intent in using a private, unsecured, unauthorized email
server.
Appearing on Fox's
America's Newsroom
, Gowdy said he thoroughly
reviewed the FBI's notes from the interview and was surprised there were no
questions addressing the former secretary of state's intent.
"Remember [FBI director] James Comey said she
was not indicted because he didn't have sufficient evidence on the issue of
intent? I didn't see any questions on the issue of intent," the congressman said.
While on the campaign trail in Iowa, giving a speech for wife Hillary Clinton, Bill's hands were noticeably trembling–and not from being in hot water with Hillary.
Kaposi's sarcoma lesions appear on Clinton's forehead. (depicted)
On CNN 12/6/13 Wolf Blitzer interviewed Clinton in regards to the death of Nelson Mandela. He
was sporting a nice big lesion on his forehead. There have been scandalous reports about him having
a secret HIV test in April of this year and though I don't follow the Star, Globe or any Murdoch
rag, I figure they are probably as right as any news these days.
I'll leave it to you to see the interview later once CNN posts it to their blogs. I had
to watch the jobless figures fraud once again. The 7% figure is fantasy and if it were to be 7% it
would mean three percent are underemployed or have just left the planet.
I find it appropriate that Bill Clinton would be on considering he signed off on NAFTA and the
sucking sound that were US jobs going across the borders and oceans. Maybe harsh justice has
come. I assume Clinton knows where he contracted it though as we all know he DID NOT
HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN, but he did with all the others.
"... I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. ..."
"... With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers. ..."
"... The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals. ..."
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him.
In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA.
With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
"When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising
haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement'
for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the
ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented
workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions
of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [
Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with
payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum
$33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings
shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first
bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic
parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to
the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for
which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from
contributions from maxed-out donors."
Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.
Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton
'a vote for a winner'.
I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to
vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really
applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason
Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no',
gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their
pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote
for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very
close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they
are pretty sure X will win.
Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to
the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the
nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems
to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton
as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.
I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern
if you are the Clinton campaign.
They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most
part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't
necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who
don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince
themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her.
Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance
will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying
Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real
fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).
On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote
For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.
Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate
Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's
respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous
on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever
she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies
list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.
I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse,
given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but
like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who
really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration
has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war,
anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.
We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the
last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in
me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing
etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To
me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.
Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer
of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives
Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for
a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!
In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they
age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector
(Einstein)
It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all
three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian
agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting
that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be
as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates
that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't
do in the Oval Office.
So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which
now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party
establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."–Lambert
I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices"
articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this.
They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.
They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean
it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans
with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there
was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It
is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position
out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing
and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people
are watching the closest…
Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to
drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade,
they may have more to fear from that.
One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed
is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many
proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's
in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come
election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these
districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and
even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.
If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what
happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans.
Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is
a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies
of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat
in the Senate depending on turnout.
I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter
activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding
Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors
and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.
What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican
pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because
she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win
on its own.
Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting
because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts
and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be
a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship
especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House
Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated
electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate
which a literal donkey could do.
Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks
that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but
Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying
attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all
flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either
agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much,
they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is.
And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as
it would if she were indicted in a Court.
I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the
loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious
that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not
vote to impeach her, but that is about it.
Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle
investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle,
and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit
to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate
in November, they won't win it in 2018.
With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats
very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.
She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might
look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going
to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential
election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay
home than vote. And that is not a mandate.
The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have
to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached
to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in
one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't
for her husband.
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
Is that Huma in a blue dress under the Resolute desk?
Pairadimes d Here2Go •Aug 27, 2016 9:14 PM
Ramirez is a genius.
zeronetwork d debtor of last resort •Aug 27, 2016 8:15 PM
The thought process Donald has started is not going to fade very soon. Still
few weeks before election. I am sure Donald got some more cards in his sleeve.
are we there yet •Aug 27, 2016 8:36 PM
I have a solution for Hillary's in-continuance and mobility declining problems.
The chair behind the presidents desk should be a wheelchair with a bedpan.
Otherwise the term 'campaign trail' will take on a whole new meaning.
Fox News' Shepard Smith appeared intent on having a guest on his program Thursday say that Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump is a racist.
Wall Street Journal investigative reporter James Grimaldi joined Smith on Fox Reports immediately
after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's speech in Reno, Nev., during which she charged that Trump
will "make America hate again."
"He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,"
she said.
Smith said that "the problem with any attempt to rebut her" was that "she used Donald Trump's own
words, what's historically accurate on his policies on all reviewed points."
He turned to Grimaldi and said, "Where do you begin with this?"
"I don't know. It was pretty extraordinary and pretty hard-hitting," the reporter replied.
Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to
work with.
Smith interjected: "He trades in racism, doesn't he?"
The Wall Street Journal reporter was not willing to go that far. "Well, I'll leave that up
to the commentators. … I'm not one to generally label people like that, so I would pass on that
question."
"... Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these. ..."
"... Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or? idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon. ..."
"... The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever heard. ..."
Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno,
Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage,
Putin, David Duke.
The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing
around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks
as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is
45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine,
introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.
To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick
pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…
link This shot shows the other direction, see the small windows at the side and back
link The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite
large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.
Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of
the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)
link The widest shot Aug. 2016. AFGE (men with black Ts) = American Federation of Gvmt. Employees.
link Here is the 'furthest back' shot. TV coverage did not show these.
link The only shot I could find showing the audience facing her. Note the ppl behind her facing
out, i.e. the cams (shown on TV etc.) are not identifiable.
link Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small
space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or?
idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped
out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important
campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country
on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.
After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters"
questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also
a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied
by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)
The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have
ever heard.
okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those
"moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area
between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could
be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will
be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry
arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose.
I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals
between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria
and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does
not look good.
I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of
course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.
Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity
and betrayal.
"... 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 issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation. ..."
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, we've been speculating for a year about what the email scandal was
all about and I think we were diverted for a year about the classification. It's a real issue, serious
issue, but that was never the issue.
The issue we've always asked ourselves here is, why was she
hiding this in the first place? Why did she have a private server? Obviously it was concealing, what
was she concealing? And the most obvious possible answer was the [Clinton] Foundation.
"... The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Thursday. ..."
"... Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server. ..."
The clearest evidence that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had something to
hide in her emails is the way she made sure their contents stayed hidden, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
said Thursday.
Clinton famously laughed off a question about whether she had wiped her private email server.
"What?
Like with a cloth or something?" she asked. "I don't know how it works digitally at all."
"... The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference with the AP's lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated. ..."
(Associated Press) Seven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing
monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time
as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won't finish the job before Election
Day.
The department has so far released about half of the schedules. Its lawyers said in a phone conference
with the AP's lawyers that the department now expects to release the last of the detailed schedules
around Dec. 30, weeks before the next president is inaugurated.
The AP's lawyers late Friday formally asked the State Department to hasten that effort so that
the department could provide all Clinton's minute-by-minute schedules by Oct. 15. The agency did
not immediately respond.
vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization
Notable quotes:
"... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
"... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
"... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
"... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
"... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
"... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
"... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
"... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
"... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
"... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
"... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
"... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
"... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
"... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
"... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
"... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
"... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
"... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
"... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
"... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
"... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
"... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
"... It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same ..."
"... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
"... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
"... Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. ..."
"... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
"... The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million people, and displaced over 13 million. ..."
"... Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street Zionists ..."
"... America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell. ..."
"... What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC and the ziomedia, but no one cares. ..."
"... For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy, David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ ..."
"... Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic rule. ..."
This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old
Nazi propaganda was
posted by Doug
Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist
at the Canadian Globe
and Mail.
It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself
as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is
a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.
Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me
know what to search for.
I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a
more fitting
object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed
in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.
The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent
of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.
The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message
and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and
being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.
Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary
including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.
The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage
up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if
human right are abuse - not exact words.
Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian
MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party
after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted
policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "
For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting
in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception.
Globalism, War & Chaos
brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot
be criticized:
"As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone,
is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through
its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a
tyrant's court " -
In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking
the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth
Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young
to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection
of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.
~ ~ ~
Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog
Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000;
Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.
Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before
voting commences.
In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went
to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be
an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere
mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading
a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total
lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The
Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.
People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political
pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.
If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment
would stop taking us all for granted.
What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced
by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -
Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening
the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based
more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned
by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.
Carter (D) = 39%
Reagan (R) = 32%
Anderson (I) = 21%
Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.
I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected.
Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years
of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?
There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and
that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible
voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some
plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit
of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral
majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one
of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery"
and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals:
Hillary and Trump
But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities,
he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released
from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding,
the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword,
waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver
the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?
All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching
of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that
studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again
belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it.
Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult
him and his wife on a personal basis.
This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort
to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?
Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at
the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers'
rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.
It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being
widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes
onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the
one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.
Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does
not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment
- a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.
Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody
else's shoes.
This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic'
work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A.
and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.
The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with
nonobservance.
It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she
wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on,
these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to
in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.
There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The
thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw
away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party
sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These
supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same
with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.
I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we
should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting
views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons
created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.
And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in
Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing"
some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol
championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security
accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the
most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation
of propaganda to move people into action.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.
Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes
to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging
on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")
She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing
empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness
will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]
Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing
his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.
Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton
foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming
shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till
some dignity.
Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate
just said no
to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels
to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
. . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal"
emails from her private server
"If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted.
They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read
them.
"They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."
"When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."
Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then
maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad
idea.
Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
"MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering
idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative,
D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears
of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.
To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more
so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on
the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety -
made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS
.
[Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]
Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked
anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with
Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and
health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws
that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing
on the same stage as the Republican nominee.
Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take
my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above
all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the
1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was
using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the
two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the
process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career
intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit
them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities…
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
=====
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate
joke. "
It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help.
More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans
where he lags.
As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured
out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of
issues to sway voters.
It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this,
as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be
working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria
and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention,
with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also
facing off with the Russians.
Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning
they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more
murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more
profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.
Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do
not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support
for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)
It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those
things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already
seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same
The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any
use?
When did it ever change anything? You going to have to come up with something a tad more effective than mere voting if you want
it to change. Personally I think the US deserves a Trump presidency.
"What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her
only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her
only way out...
Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the
attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to
do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).
Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently,
what's he's being set up for..?
Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding
Industry" reviewed here:
http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit
they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he
is a well meaning wacko.
Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation! I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then
again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times
for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through
hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.
The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention
from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that
"Godfather"
Biden visits Turkey
The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American
society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the
peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced
the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million
people, and displaced over 13 million.
Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million
people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced
to flee the country.
Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework
of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance,
on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto
NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to
play a serious role.
As for the people, they simply have no say.
The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One
tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments
such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature
of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is
a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that
is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.
Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats, not just the Wall Street
Zionists, so I am perplexed at b's comment.
America, despite glowing MSM BS, is on the ropes of neoliberalism. As an older American,I remember
a land of plenty, with good jobs for all, instead of fast food retail hell.
I don't think b has any
idea of the realities being endured by US, as the media refuses to give US reality ,instead rosy
economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep
up with the expanding population, and as DT says ,the inner cities are hellholes, witness the NBA
star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
I had a nurse from Hempstead NY, when i had the big C, who said an old man in a wheelchair had a
pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks. WTF?
And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars, Bannon is accused of calling Jews
whiny. Well ,as a longtime observer, he is spot on there.
And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC
and the ziomedia, but no one cares.(her supporters) If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals, those
who wish the death of others so they live in safety (which of course is poppycock) what is?
And when Trump gets her in the debates, he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.
There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.
And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece
is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies
as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic?
Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade
deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones
who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.
For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy,
David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/
Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what
he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who
are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic
rule.
Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor
of evils.
"... video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside the left eyelid. ..."
"... There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during surgery. ..."
"... It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he underwent bypass surgery in February 2010. ..."
"... Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for over 20 years. ..."
"... To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents though. ..."
"... If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. ..."
In their new
book, Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love, the authors interview Clinton
insiders who claim that Bill slept with so many women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced
him to get an HIV test from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
And while the first tests came back negative, HIV and AIDS might explain an ongoing mystery.
Over the years, both Clintons have kept their medical records a secret. Clinton has explained his
rapidly changing appearance to his heart surgery and "new diet" but he has looked increasingly thin
and weak at Hillary campaign rallies.
As Rush Limbaugh opined, looking at Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Rush only sees Preparation
H, Geritol, Fixodent, and Depends. Bill Clinton looks like his health is on a rapid recline.
The Dec 6 2013 video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside
the left eyelid. Hillary's neurological problems are probably from:
PRIMARY CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM (CNS) LYMPHOMA
Your central nervous system consists of your brain, spinal cord, and spinal nerves. This
system controls all the workings of your body. HIV can infect and damage parts of it.
Primary CNS lymphoma is a type of cancer that typically occurs in people with CD4 counts
less than 50 cells/mm3. This type of cancer affects the lymph system in your brain and spinal
cord. Symptoms of this type of cancer can include:
Headache
Memory loss
Confusion
Other neurological changes
(Other conditions may cause the same symptoms. Consult your healthcare provider if you have
any of these symptoms.)
Diagnosis includes many of the same types of tests as those for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-but
because CNS lymphoma affects the brain directly, your healthcare provider may want to do a
brain biopsy as well. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for AIDS-related CNS lymphoma.
For more information, see the National Cancer Institute's General Information About Primary
CNS Lymphoma.
Pierce, June 16, 2016 at 1:03 am
this is a stupid article, first of all HIV doesn't cause neurological signs unless you have
crytococcous neoformans, PML, HIV dementia which will only happen if he is not taking medications
which as a doctor i'm 100 percent sure,
NEXT people forgot that BILL CLINTON had a CABG(cornary artery bypass procedure) this procedure
which has a side effect of NEUROTOXICITY. Even though he might of had side effects from this procedure
his IQ is not affected.
DONT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE ARTICLE
Gunnar, July 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Your response sounds emotional, Pierce. There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects
of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are
long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive
function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during
surgery.
It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he
underwent bypass surgery in February 2010.
Laura, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 pm
Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA
for over 20 years. This is what happens to humans when they live a degenerative lifestyle.
Not everyone gets HIV but something else gets them. You can't fool Mother Nature. She will get
you in the end.
Robert says: February 25, 2016 at 9:59 pm
To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so.
I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents
though. I wouldn't wish that disease on any body.
Debbie says: February 25, 2016 at 5:23 pm
If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. How many are at
risk? Even Hillary may be at risk..Is that where her cough has come from ???? Does she have it?
Is thatwhat Obama has had on them?
"... "As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone, is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a tyrant's court " - ..."
"... In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism. ..."
"... Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000; Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen. ..."
"... Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before voting commences. ..."
"... In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The Donald.' Sad days for the Republic. ..."
"... US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby. ..."
"... The US presidential election this November will tell whether a majority of the US population is irredeemably stupid. If voters elect Hillary, we will know that Americans are stupid beyond redemption. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/25/trump-vs-hillary-a-summation-paul-craig-roberts/ ..."
"... Paul Joseph Watson responds to Hillary's racism speech - The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufkHt8dgG8I ..."
"... But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities, he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding, the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword, waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull? ..."
"... All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination. The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support HRC ..."
"... ...Hillary is a one woman criminal enterprise and she's the monster's mother. [a comment from the intercept] ..."
"... It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence ..."
"... Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till some dignity. ..."
"... Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate just said no to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation. ..."
"... "MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative, D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years. ..."
"... [Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...] ..."
"... Outside the two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ..."
"... It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help. More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans where he lags. ..."
"... it makes the msm look like what it actually is - propaganda tool for the 1% with jackass journalists in tow.. ..."
"... As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of issues to sway voters. ..."
"... It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this, as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians. ..."
"... Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine. ..."
"... The proper question is : after Obama, why do people like you still think that voting is of any use? ..."
"... "What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her only way out... ..."
"... If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns. ..."
This pic comparing a young Donald Trump with a child figure in some old
Nazi propaganda was
posted by Doug
Saunders , supposedly a serious international-affairs columnist
at the Canadian Globe
and Mail.
It is illogical, childish nonsense. But Saunders is by far the only one disqualifying himself
as serious commentator by posting such bullshit. Indeed, the villain-ification of Donald Trump is
a regular feature which runs through U.S. and international media from the left to the right.
Is there any villain in U.S. (political) culture Donald Trump has not been compare to? Let me
know what to search for.
I doubt that this assault on Trump's character is effective. (Hillary Clinton is a
more fitting
object .) Potential Trump voters will at best ignore it. More likely they will feel confirmed
in their belief that all media and media people are anti-Trump and pro-Clinton.
The onslaught only validates what himself Trump claims: that all media are again him, independent
of whatever policies he may promote or commit to.
The jokes on them. Older voters, smarter voters are voting for Trump. If he remains on message
and points out those things that do matter then he can win. He has to stop the joking around and
being nasty. Be serious and get to the point.
Trump can joke and talk all the nonsense he want, still it won't change my mind. I know Hillary
including Bernie Sanders - they're from the same pot of shit.
The only question remain, should I vote for Jill Stein to bring her Green Party percentage
up? Jill Stein spoke repeatedly she will stop all aids to any country and NOT only Israel if
human right are abuse - not exact words.
Further she is a strong support of BDS even as Canada Green Party leader not in favor "Canadian
MP Elizabeth May told reporters on Monday that she will stay on as leader of Canada's Green Party
after saying she was considering stepping down because of her opposition to the party's recently-adopted
policy of endorsing the strategy of Boycott Divest and Sanction against Israel. "
For decades, at least 40 years, it was a whisper that the international medias have been sitting
in the lap of a certain 3 letter agency. The mission: Manufacturing Consent by Deception.
Globalism, War & Chaos
brought by The Establishment owners of Deep Shadow Government. This quote from Robert Faurisson who is tagged a Halocaust denier may offend those who cannot
be criticized:
"As for the petty little world of journalism, the media demonstrates how it, more than anyone,
is careful to traffic only in authorized ideas and waves; while at the same time it fosters, through
its antics, the illusion of a free circulation of ideas and opinions – not unlike jesters in a
tyrant's court " -
In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking
the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth
Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young
to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika – an insurrection
of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.
~ ~ ~
Add the pollsters in this deception. If polling samples are heavily weighted with yellow-dog
Democrats the result is a Clinton lead. One only has to look at crowd draw: Trump = 7,000-10,000;
Hiltery can't fill a kindergarten play-pen.
Suggest the Trump campaign deploy IT personnel to inspect all Diebold software seconds before
voting commences.
In 8 years $Hillary was a US Senator (D-NY) she accomplished nothing of note. I actually went
to one of her public appearances thinking I would hear something positive. She appeared to be
an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing empathy with mere
mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness will be reading
a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff lest she reveal her total
lack of human empathy and a state of perpetual clueless detachment from reality. $hill and 'The
Donald.' Sad days for the Republic.
People vote against their own self interests only because bought-and-paid-for MSM and political
pundits SAY that a third-party can't win.
If everyone would simply turn off toxic media and simply vote for their best interest the establishment
would stop taking us all for granted.
What is better: Trump is elected but Obama-Hillary Democratic "Third-Way" back-stabbing sell-outs are replaced
by a real left opposition led by Greens? - OR -
Obama-Hillary fake left squashes real opposition for another 8 years while extending and deepening
the soul-crushing neolib/neocon disaster?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
US has to move away from its current hyper-financialized FIRE-based economy toward one based
more on making things. There's only a chance to do that under Trump, since HRC is totally owned
by Wall Street and the Perpetual War lobby.
Carter (D) = 39%
Reagan (R) = 32%
Anderson (I) = 21%
Who took it? Polls are still unreliable. The poll sampling is key.
I don't have a vote. On November 08, the real problem is one of the two will be (s)elected.
Your decision does weigh heavily and guarantees the selection. Can you support another 4-8 years
of the certified corrupt Clinton couple?
There is a third way to effectively cast a ballot outside the two main party's candidates and
that is not to vote at all. This is effective as a historical fact that some fraction of eligible
voters did not participate (whatever the cause) and the winning candidate was enabled by some
plurality rather than a majority of the eligible electorate. Throwing away one's vote in a fit
of moral superiority is an effective way to throw away one's voting rights, but then the 'moral
majority' that wrecked the Republic never realised their culpability and still haven't. Not one
of the minority candidates became anything more than a sad footnote to history - not one.
I guess instead of violating Goodwin law, or complain one-sidedly, we should eschew "Hitlery"
and "fascist Trump", and find some high-brow metaphors. My proposals:
Hillary and Trump
But I started to doubt once I understood the gist of the song of Escamillo. After some generalities,
he tells the events at the bull fight. Among the shouts of the spectators, a big bull is released
from the corral. A picador woulds his back, then he is further wounded with banderillas. Bleeding,
the bull retreats, only to wheel back and charge once more. Then the torero, with cape and sword,
waits for him, fully alert (toreador, en guard!) to misdirect the bull a few times and deliver
the final stab. Is Trump the torero or the bull?
All the Trump bashing just reinforces the Propaganda System's utter lack of credibility and imagination.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal. The launching
of the self-proclaimed "Our Revolution" website/organization is yet another DNC-based sham that
studiously avoids any mention of the military or foreign policy on its "Issues" page, which again
belies its nature since the #1 issue for all Genuine Progressives is War and being against it.
Still have 10 weeks to go. Stein has earned all the votes within my household.
I'm not a big fan of Trump's but I find that people don't argue about his politics, but insult
him and his wife on a personal basis.
This makes me think that it's the turn of the 'Left' in the USA to become immature and resort
to name calling. Remember when it was the 'Right' that made fun of Kerry's Purple Heart?
Which also exposes the problem with politics worldwide - the Left and the Right have met at
the extremes and we now see progressives arguing for burkinis and the right arguing for workers'
rights by trying to prevent the TPP, etc.
It is called 'Psychological Projection' and seems to be successful for the good reason of being
widespread inherent in the population itself. To project one's own shortcomings, flaws and crimes
onto somebody else is as common, as it is based on the lack of real intelligence - no, not the
one that is derived from fancy questionnaires, or adding numbers.
Real intelligence includes the understanding that sitting in a glasshouse throwing rocks does
not qualify to be such. It also includes the understanding to be inseparable part of one's environment
- a shared environment indicating that there is only interdependence, not separation.
Furthermore, real intelligence includes compassion, kindness and the will to walk in somebody
else's shoes.
This intelligence is sorely missing in the majority of people that are entrusted with 'journalistic'
work, or working in public offices. The stench of being "holier that thou" is covering the U.S.A.
and wafts to Europe were it is now also modus operandi.
The best course of action would be to punish those who engage in this kind of demagoguery with
nonobservance.
It won't be Trump who brings us fascism as the images implies, but more likely Clinton if she
wins and if the Democrats can win over one of the Houses of Congress. As the campaign goes on,
these comparisons add up and create in the minds of anybody anti-Trump an actual equivalency to
in particular Hitler. This is one half of the combustion needed to go down the road to fascism.
There is something else that Trump given the Russian hysteria is being called--a traitor. The
thing is, Hillary supports believe this to be true in a criminal sense. It is not just some throw
away smear normal for any election. I have seen way too way postings in major democratic party
sites calls for basically the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. These
supporters are historically clueless on what they are asking for, and I would imagine the same
with much of the democratic party lawmakers in Congress.
I can see if Hillary wins, witch hunts against anti-war protesters, or people who believe we
should have rapprochement with Russia and China. The goal will be to criminalize and punish dissenting
views on foreign and war policies because the constant Putin/Trump/Hitler/Stalin/etc comparisons
created the foundation for actual criminal accusations.
And the witch hunts will spread beyond war and foreign policy. Look at what is going on in
Europe. Literally, and I do mean literally, every problem is being attributed to Putin "weaponizing"
some issue. Serious politicians accused Putin of using drunken Russian fans during the Euro futbol
championships of starting fights to support Brexit. The Polish minister for internal security
accused Putin of master minding the Paris terrorist attacks. And these guys get away with the
most outlandish accusations. As the real Nazis understood, repetition of lies is the foundation
of propaganda to move people into action.
The underlying nature of numerous political websites is also exposed thanks to their shilling
for HRC--particularly those calling themselves Progressive: No Genuine Progressive would support
HRC, or Sanders now that he's exposed himself for what he is, a Chevrolet Liberal.
Well the resident Zio-Racist Hill-shill (rufus magister | Aug 26, 2016 11:47:38 AM | 5) likes
to pretend he is some sort of progressive, but still can't keep from outing himself by banging
on non-stop about the Zio-Racists favourite talking points (Heil hillary and "holocaustholocaustholocaut!!")
She appeared to be an idiot when speaking extemporaneously. Clueless and incapable of expressing
empathy with mere mortals. If there are debates with 'The Donald' I would expect that Her Highness
will be reading a teleprompter. Her handlers do not allow her to speak off the cuff [.]
Very interesting because I have been discussing with colleagues here the Don should be honing
his debating skill sets as Hillary is a trained lawyer/politician.
Even if Hillary is elected, her mandate will be haunted by her email stupidity and the Clinton
foundation cupidity. She will be paralyzed and may not even finish her mandate. To avoid the looming
shame, I think she should work NOT to be elected, so she can leave the political scene with till
some dignity.
Regarding voting against one's own interests, the Republican majority leader of the senate
just said no
to TPP for the time being... Draw your own conclusions; I'm more bemused by the parallels
to eastern Europe under Soviet vs NATO occupation.
. . .Clinton's use of BleachBit undermines her claims that she only deleted innocuous "personal"
emails from her private server
"If she considered them to be personal, then she and her lawyers had those emails deleted.
They didn't just push the delete button, they had them deleted where even God can't read
them.
"They were using something called BleachBit You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails."
"When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see."
Vitriol galore! If the arguments made above ... either way ... are the best we can do then
maybe electing Hillary and hoping for WW3 is the lessor of evils. As I've said before, not a bad
idea.
Posted by: From The Hague | Aug 26, 2016 2:22:04 PM | 34
"MoA-readers, who are left/progressive/intellectual/democratic/anti-Trump, are warmongering
idiots." No, the true idiocy is with those who still buy into this concocted left/right, liberal/conservative,
D/R scheme to oppress the masses. Divide and conquer at its very best. The Romans would cry tears
of joy how their principle is so successfully implemented - since over 200 years.
To be bold here: a 'left' mother loves her child as much as a 'right' mother and even more
so the grandparents. Any grandparent here that denies their grandchildren their love based on
the fact that their children cling on to a different belief? And that it is in its entirety -
made believe by the Plutocrats and the sheople throw shit at each other instead of UPWARDS
.
[Full Text Of Hillary Clinton's Speech On The Alt-Right ...]
Just yesterday, one of Britain's most prominent right-wing leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked
anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with
Donald Trump in Mississippi. Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal immigrants from public schools and
health services, has said women are quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws
that prevent employers from discriminating based on race ― that's who Trump wants by his side.
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
In fact, Farage has appeared regularly on Russian propaganda programs. Now he's standing
on the same stage as the Republican nominee.
During a campaign rally in Nevada, US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the
dangers of right-wing forces in power, as well as about problems of racism. "Clinton noted that her rival Donald Trump supported the policies of Russian President Vladimir
Putin. As for relations with Russia, the views of Donald Trump come contrary to the views of all
American presidents, from "Truman to Reagan."
"He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea,
giving the Kremlin a free hand in eastern Europe. American presidents from Truman, to Reagan,
to Bush, to Clinton, to Obama have rejected the kind of approach Trump is taking on Russia. And
we should, too," Clinton said.
Hatred of Trump is nothing more than cloaked Jewish hatred of white Christians. Go ahead and take
my comment down, but you are too smart to not know the truth deep down in your heart. This above
all else, lie to yourself to protect the Jewish lies.
About the most successful 'breakaway political movement' ever was probably the Dixiecrats in the
1948 election which actually garnered a small fraction of the electoral college, but that was
using the apparatus of an organised national political party existent regionally. Outside the
two traditional parties, there is no effective national political party. ...Next time keep your idiot elections to yourselves - Please.
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the
process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career
intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit
them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities…
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
=====
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Tom @38: "Trump the racist Appealing to African-Americans was just a demented and sick desperate
joke. "
It is actually not stupid. First, raising his support among the Blacks from 1% to 2% may help.
More importantly, he has to work on the vote of educated whites, especially suburban female Republicans
where he lags.
However, a position that he is not racist is ... misguided, say. Through most of his life,
Trump simply donated to all elected politicians in areas where he was doing business, as it is
apparently necessary for every serious developer. But in recent years he became sort of Republican
activists, and his premiere issue was "birthism". A conspiracy theory alleging that Obama was
born abroad. Incidentally, Ted Cruz was born abroad, in Canada, of non-citizen father and American
citizen mother, and, surprise, surprise, he is perfectly eligible to run for President, but simple
legal arguments like that, not to mention actual documents from a hospital in Hawaii did not satisfy
the insane crowd. The only motivation that is non-insane is ugly: harping on "otherness" of mix-race
President with Muslim first name and African last name.
Or Trump harping that he would be more successful in foreign policy because he would be "more
respected" than a women or a Black boy.
Trump supports police brutality, down to gunning down unarmed poor folks (to err on the side
of caution) and death penalty, for innocently accused as it turned later. Somehow a white person
killing poor women and refrigerating the corpses does not lead to conniptions and full page newspaper
ads, unlike black youth accused of rape. This is really harking to good old time of lynch mobs.
LITERALLY.
And this: "Trump blamed financial difficulties partly on African American accountants.
"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza - black guys counting my money!"
O'Donnell's book quoted Trump as saying. "I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my
money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting
my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the
guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really
is; I believe that. It's not anything they can control."
As a long time observer of elections and history, it seems that this time both parties have figured
out the value of identity politics and are using that instead of any intelligent discussion of
issues to sway voters.
It's probably the total ownership of the media by the oligarchs that allows them to do this,
as it appears that no issues such as TPP or the wasteful MIC are ever discussed. Identity politics allows everything to be emotional and not rational, and it appears to be
working for anyone who does not have the time or volition to read with care.
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria
and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we're very likely to see a full-scale US intervention,
with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also
facing off with the Russians.
Anyone calling for people to support Hilary Clinton, irrespective of whatever dishonest reasoning
they use to try and con people into thinking it is a good idea, is calling for more war, more
murder of brown-skinned middle eastern muslims and christians etc., and most importantly: more
profits for the US/Zionist Death Machine.
Make no mistake about that, these shitty Hillary-supporting people cannot claim that they do
not know what that that is what they are doing, because she has been quite vocal in her support
for more war and more murder (on behalf of Isreal naturally)
It may be that, despite his rethoric, and like Oboma before him, Trump will bring all those
things too, should he win, but we DO know for sure what Killary intends, because we have already
seen her handywork, and she has promised more of the same
There's Hillary, whose delusion is that she has any political game. Certainly not enough to
get elected President, even against a reality TV host. Then there's Donald, whose delusion is
that he actually _is_ the person he plays on TV.
In the midst of the insanity is Jill. JIILLLLLLL people!
OT, but did Bill marry Hill as a firewall against any possibility he might act on his more
than occasional human/humane instincts? She certainly would have none of that, he must've known.
NOTHING must stand in the way of ambition.
What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign (or whatever verb works for this
presidential nominee situation), Apologize to all the voters who chose her. Explain that she would
probably be impeached and would be essentially neutered. She should then tell the public that Bernie Sanders would do the best for all the people of
this nation.
"What Hillary ought to do is very simple: Resign" I don't think she can, she's just a puppet, and her handlers would never let that happen. Her
only chance is with her body finally giving in overwhelmed with guilt, stress, medication, her
only way out...
Look what they did to Reagan and the pope JP2 - GHWB failed with his assassins, but after the
attempts, both these puppets were basically doing what told, with only little freedom left to
do some good things (served well for maintaining appearances).
Which brings again that question to my mind - why did they let Hinckley the patsy out recently,
what's he's being set up for..?
Oooo! Shillary! Such refined thinking. Face it, the US has always been corrupt. "The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding
Industry" reviewed here:
http://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/american-slave-coast--the-products-9781613748206.php says it all. Thomas Jefferson, a hero? What about George Washington, the land owner? Trump and Clinton are only unusual in that most Duhmericans have finally no choice but to admit
they are venal. Stein, who could NEVER win, seems honorable. Johnson may be a wacked out libertarian, but he
is a well meaning wacko.
Great choices for the great democracy, light of the world, exceptional nation!
I agree, Duhmerican politics are stupid ... the dumbest people in the world make it so. Then
again, is any place humans habitate NOT idiotically insane stupid?
"Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote
for him."
If the US is to cease being an empire, the average American is going to go through hard times
for a bit. If the US continues as a declining empire, the average American citizen will go through
hard times plus another lot of harder times when the declining empire crashes and burns.
Peter at 68: No, that's conventional economic thinking. Americans or any people will have good
economic times if the government stimulates the economy in ways that grow high-paying jobs, restructures
economic power toward workers, and massively redistributes income to the middle and working classes.
Empire or no Empire.
...
"Vladimir Putin is the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism.", Hillary
Clinton said, (while standing in front of a gigantic American Flag, without a trace of Irony detectable
in her voice).
Posted by: Shillary | Aug 26, 2016 5:22:34 PM | 50
Yep. Dangerously stupid.
Superficial and self-absorbed Hollywoodishness; the polar opposite of self-aware.
The Godfather image is a popular one these days. The Godmother use it to deflect attention
from her own role as cackling harridan, wailing banshee of DDD&D ... others note that
"Godfather"
Biden visits Turkey
The foreign policy of the American ruling class, in addition to the impoverishment of American
society to fund the vast military apparatus, has had the most horrifying consequences for the
peoples of the countries targeted. The war fomented by the United States in Syria has reduced
the population of that country from 23 million to about 17 million, killed up to half a million
people, and displaced over 13 million.
Thirteen years after the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of at least a million
people, some 4.4 million Iraqis are internally displaced, with over a quarter million forced
to flee the country.
Questions of foreign policy are not decided, much less deliberated, within the framework
of elections. Nowhere in the 2016 presidential race is there a serious debate, for instance,
on the character of the US alliance with Turkey or the consequences of launching a de facto
NATO invasion of Syria. Congress holds no hearings or votes. It neither seeks nor desires to
play a serious role.
As for the people, they simply have no say.
The press plays a key role in the deception and disenfranchisement of the population. One
tactic employed by the corporate-controlled media is simply to exclude "minor" developments
such as a US-backed invasion of Syria from the so-called "news." The most remarkable feature
of the media coverage to date of the Turkish incursion is its virtual non-existence. It is
a good bet, due to the media's corrupt silence, that the percentage of the US population that
is even aware of the invasion is in the single digits.
You forgot to add: "anyone who willfully votes for either Red Donald or Blue Hillary is a moral
leper, ...one who will still have to cough up a $4.5 TRILLION King's Ransom on April 15th for
Mil.Gov.Fed metastasizing Technocracy, regardless, and still have to pay $650 BILLION a year of
that YUUGE ransom in interest-only debt (sic) tithes to The Chosen."
Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a complete
emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though --- in the US
lawyers as far as the eye can see.
Shillary @50 -- Hillary Clinton is completely devoid of any sense of irony or humour. She's a
complete emotional and, I would add, intellectual dud. She seems to be a good lawyer, though ---
in the US lawyers as far as the eye can see.
OT
GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the
way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once
again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that
has killed hundreds of thousands.
After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling
in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.
Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the
ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces,
the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by
the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and
mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.
The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely
become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops
across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.
Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps
to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain
unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming
days, he said.
```
Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to
separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters
who hold parts of northwest Syria.
"We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which
is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."
Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable
after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this
year.
The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of
the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for
the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
```
In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret.
```
And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes
the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces,
Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been
involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate
opposition forces.
~~~
At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon
has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it
has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call
for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.
U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar
Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and
concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by
what has become a largely ignored truce.
For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder
on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change
is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.
Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent
and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around
the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed
Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.
Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus
suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday
after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in
ruins.
The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad,
marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat
of power.
Returning to protectionism and fair trade will lift all American boats,not just the Wall Street
Zionists,so I am perplexed at b's comment.
America,despite glowing MSM BS,is on the ropes of neoliberalism.As an older American,I remember
a land of plenty,with good jobs for all,instead of fast food retail hell.I don't think b has any
idea of the realities being endured by US,as the media refuses to give US reality,instead rosy
economic garbage where not once in Obombas terrible reign have they created enough jobs to keep
up with the expanding population,and as DT says,the inner cities are hellholes,witness the NBA
star Dwayne Wades cousin shot in Chicago pushing a baby stroller.
I had a nurse from Hempstead NY,when i had the big C,who said an old man in a wheelchair had a
pit bull tied to it to ward off potential crooks.WTF?
And now the antisemitism card is played by the serial liars,Bannon is accused of calling Jews
whiny.Well,as a longtime observer,he is spot on there.
And the lying times says 90% chance for Hell bitch victory.
Will saying it so often make it so?Nah.
What is unbelievable is the fact that she corruptly stole the primary with the help of the DNC
and the ziomedia,but no one cares.(her supporters)If not emblematic of the depravity of liberals,those
who wish the death of others so they live in safety(which of course is poppycock)what is?
And when Trump gets her in the debates,he'll destroy the MSM narrative of BS.
Part 1. ;) Got dragged into Killary's alt-right speech at Truckee Meadows Community College, Reno,
Nevada, Aug 2016. Only content: 100% against Trump , as sidebars, Alex Jones, Nigel Farage,
Putin, David Duke.
The official MSM version is 31 mins - the frame is just her with a fixed cam centered nothing
around. Sparse occasional clapping (real, one can see the clappers in other vids).. She speaks
as one would to a parterre of 30-50 ppl, not as in a campaign rally. A longer version (MSM) is
45 mins and shows some of the preliminaries, some guy, then the Mayor of Reno, youngish blondine,
introducing her. Killary was apparently hours late. (> youtube.) Killary is dressed in green.
To the interesting part. She spoke at the same College in Feb. 2015. Note: red dress, the brick
pillars typical of the college, and the big windows behind. A big hall…
The event has all the hallmarks of a 'proper' pol show, no need to list. Note the Hall, quite
large, is not full. The signs are blue and are for Hillary, for Women, for Nevada and so on.
Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
Re: Geneva negotiations...
Love the goto clause:
"In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret."
Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't
immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.
Part 2. The Aug. 2016 event took place at the College but either in a small part of the back of
the big hall or another locale (similar in architecture obviously)
Bizzaro event. Minuscule, there is almost nobody there. It was deliberatly set up in 'small
space' for the cams. The only other important ppl present are one man (Head of the college or?
idk) and the Mayor of Reno. The only signs shown say *USA* are not appropriate and are whipped
out only when Killary comes onstage. Doesn't even look like a Democrat event! Never mind an important
campaign rally for *drum rolls* the person anointed to become Prez. of the most powerful country
on Earth, the World Queen or Hegemon.
After the speech, vids show H.C. talking to a very few ppl, 25 at most, not answering "reporters"
questions, two tiny trays of confections were offered. Bwwahhh. She ate one choc. There was also
a stop at a Reno Coffee shop (10 ppl?) which made no sense. On these occasions she is accompanied
by the Mayor in a cosy girly coffee thingie. (> youtube.)
The US is fracturing...Moreover the speech was perhaps the weakest from any pol I have ever
heard.
Wait a minute! They ID'd the hacker and it's a business in Israel? And it forced Apple to an
emergency software upgrade. But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government.
There is one villain Trump has not been compared to: Hillary Clinton.
And don't be the kettle calling the pot black, whoever the author of this ill-researched piece
is. Your own journalism strikes me as irresponsible when you claim, "Trump's economic policies
as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him." Catastrophic?
Really? Who exactly is "most likely to vote for him" that would not benefit from better trade
deals and more corporate incentives for domestic business? The global elite? They're the ones
who definitely won't benefit, but they also definitely won't vote for him. Get your thinking straight.
For clear light on the positive relationship between a Trump presidency and the US economy,
David Stockman offers wisdom. Take a look from time to time at his website to educate yourself:
okie farmer@80 Lavrov is on a loser if he accepts this "moderate terrorist" BS from Kerry. Those
"moderates" have replaced Islamic state in Jerablus, soon to be expanded to cover that huge area
between Jerablus, Azaz and Al-bab,all without a fight and apparent agreement with IS. Next could
be the area is controlled by Turkish and US "moderate" head choppers, which of course nobody will
be allowed to attack. They should only be called moderate if they oppose Assad and do not carry
arms, otherwise its just a case of changing labels, in which case the terrorists could never lose.
I find it hard to believe that so soon after the so called normalization of ties and trade deals
between Russia and Turkey, Turkey could do what they have threatened to do for years, invade Syria
and set up prospective no fly zones. I suppose we must wait and see, but in my opinion, it does
not look good.
@88, curtis, 'But I thought all the evil hackers were Russians working for the government'
Maybe they are ... Russian emigre hackers working for the Israeli government?
@92 hl,
I agree. Russia has been stabbed in the back by Turkey, and the US is backing Turkey ... of
course they were backing the Kurds, too, until they weren't.
Erdogan is utterly unreliable ... or he is utterly reliable if you're relying on duplicity
and betrayal.
Now it is time for people to start saying Roberts is a shill for Trump. If you've read what
he has written about Trump, he's highly critical. His point is simple: Do you support those who
are so blatantly against Trump? Or, put the other way around, are you in favor of continued oligarchic
rule.
Like Roberts, I am so opposed to Clinton that Trump seems (even ever so slightly) the lessor
of evils.
1 "Donald Trump is worse than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12182955/Donald-Trump-is-worse-than-Irans-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html
2 "Donald Trump Is America's Gift To Bin Laden"
www.huffpost.com/us/entry/10445156
Gesine Hammerling@89 - "...What would happen if Trump won the majority of the members of the
Electoral College but they voted for Clinton?..."
The Electoral College vote is absolute - the candidate that gets 270 of the 538 votes wins,
so Clinton would be elected. If neither candidate gets that many, then an immediate vote by the
House of Representatives decides. The popular vote that takes place at the same time is utterly
meaningless other than to chose one of two bribe-funneling political parties who, in turn, chose
their typically party-loyal electors. There's a bit more to it than that, but that sums it up.
And, yes, the state political parties could chose electors who would jump ship and vote for the
other party. That will be the way they will ensure Clinton is elected in November regardless of
who the little people think they're voting for. Anyone who is familiar with the process knows
this will happen, including the Republican Party. Trump obviously knows the fix is in.
The paradox comes about because the political parties at the state level have slowly taken
over the process of choosing who goes to the electoral college. The founders' original intent
was to have (presumably) the best and the brightest citizens representing each state, making an
informed decision that would produce the 'best' choice. There were no political parties to speak
of when the Constitution was penned. In fact, the founders were rather suspicious of them in general
but did not go so far as to prohibit them (to our eventual ruin). They never intended the rigged,
two-party freak show popularity contest masquerading as an election that we have today.
For a bit more nuance in the choice of state electors, their vote pledge and 'jumping ship' (if
it's allowed by law in that state, see
faithless electors
.
I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index
depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect
the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada
and New Zealand). http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015
russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play
hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms,
it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons?
that's the answer to that bs...
as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance
with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along
with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the
usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi
arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists
that they are...
"... Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love ..."
"... video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside the left eyelid. ..."
"... There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during surgery. ..."
"... It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he underwent bypass surgery in February 2010. ..."
"... Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for over 20 years. ..."
"... To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents though. ..."
"... If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. ..."
In their new
book, Bill & Hillary: So This is That Thing Called Love, the authors interview Clinton
insiders who claim that Bill slept with so many women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced
him to get an HIV test from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
And while the first tests came back negative, HIV and AIDS might explain an ongoing mystery.
Over the years, both Clintons have kept their medical records a secret. Clinton has explained his
rapidly changing appearance to his heart surgery and "new diet" but he has looked increasingly thin
and weak at Hillary campaign rallies.
As Rush Limbaugh opined, looking at Bill Clinton on the campaign trail, Rush only sees Preparation
H, Geritol, Fixodent, and Depends. Bill Clinton looks like his health is on a rapid recline.
The Dec 6 2013 video of Bill Clinton clearly shows Kaposi Sarcoma on the forehead and inside
the left eyelid. Hillary's neurological problems are probably from:
PRIMARY CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM (CNS) LYMPHOMA
Your central nervous system consists of your brain, spinal cord, and spinal nerves. This
system controls all the workings of your body. HIV can infect and damage parts of it.
Primary CNS lymphoma is a type of cancer that typically occurs in people with CD4 counts
less than 50 cells/mm3. This type of cancer affects the lymph system in your brain and spinal
cord. Symptoms of this type of cancer can include:
Headache
Memory loss
Confusion
Other neurological changes
(Other conditions may cause the same symptoms. Consult your healthcare provider if you have
any of these symptoms.)
Diagnosis includes many of the same types of tests as those for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-but
because CNS lymphoma affects the brain directly, your healthcare provider may want to do a
brain biopsy as well. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for AIDS-related CNS lymphoma.
For more information, see the National Cancer Institute's General Information About Primary
CNS Lymphoma.
Pierce, June 16, 2016 at 1:03 am
this is a stupid article, first of all HIV doesn't cause neurological signs unless you have
crytococcous neoformans, PML, HIV dementia which will only happen if he is not taking medications
which as a doctor i'm 100 percent sure,
NEXT people forgot that BILL CLINTON had a CABG(cornary artery bypass procedure) this procedure
which has a side effect of NEUROTOXICITY. Even though he might of had side effects from this procedure
his IQ is not affected.
DONT LISTEN TO THIS GARBAGE ARTICLE
Gunnar, July 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Your response sounds emotional, Pierce. There is a long list of adverse neurological after-effects
of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, some of them short term and others that are
long term. Surgeons who deal with these issues refer to the long term and permanent loss of cognitive
function as "pump head", so named because the patient was kept alive by a heart-lung machine during
surgery.
It's very likely that Bill Clinton has been dealing with a form of "pump head" since he
underwent bypass surgery in February 2010.
Laura, May 17, 2016 at 4:42 pm
Absolutely looks like HIV to me. I have seen it, believe me, working in a hospital as a PA for
over 20 years. This is what happens to humans when they live a degenerative lifestyle. Not everyone
gets HIV but something else gets them. You can't fool Mother Nature. She will get you in the end.
Robert says: February 25, 2016 at 9:59 pm
To be honest..I had thought that maybe Bill Clinton was HIV positive back a year ago or so. I
managed to see him on TV and was shocked at how totally wasted away he looked. Just my 2 cents
though. I wouldn't wish that disease on any body.
Debbie says: February 25, 2016 at 5:23 pm
If he has HIV it should be known to many sex partners as he has had. How many are at risk? Even
Hillary may be at risk..Is that where her cough has come from ???? Does she have it? Is thatwhat
Obama has had on them?
In this gif the thumb of his right hand has a lot going on independently of the rest of his
fingers. Take a look at his left hand, and you will see the less noticeable tremor in his index
and middle fingers.
"... Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations. ..."
"... Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population. ..."
The most definitive study on fascism written in these years was As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn.
Flynn was a journalist and scholar of a liberal spirit who had written a number of best-selling books
in the 1920s. It was the New Deal that changed him. His colleagues all followed FDR into fascism,
while Flynn himself kept the old faith. That meant that he fought FDR every step of the way, and
not only his domestic plans. Flynn was a leader of the America First movement that saw FDR's drive
to war as nothing but an extension of the New Deal, which it certainly was.
As We Go Marching came out in 1944, just at the tail end of the war, and right in the midst of
wartime economic controls the world over. It is a wonder that it ever got past the censors. It is
a full-scale study of fascist theory and practice, and Flynn saw precisely where fascism ends: in
militarism and war as the fulfillment of the stimulus spending agenda. When you run out of everything
else to spend money on, you can always depend on nationalist fervor to back more military spending.
Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost
everyone else chose to ignore. After reviewing this long history, Flynn proceeds to sum up with a
list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state.
As I present them, I will also offer comments on the modern American central state.
Point 1. The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers.
If you become directly ensnared in the state's web, you will quickly discover that there are indeed
no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown,
or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey or be caged
like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all
of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo.
No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not
readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing,
household products, and even private relationships. Mussolini himself put his principle this way:
"All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." I submit to you that
this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has
been kidnapped by the fascist state.
Point 2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.
I wouldn't say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a
form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has
spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances.
The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role
of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the
policy of the executive. This executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge.
The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer
some legitimacy on the institution. In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any "democratic
mandate." Here we find the power to regulate all aspects of life and the wicked power to create the
money necessary to fund this executive rule.
Point 3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.
The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which
was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy- whether in
Mussolini's time or ours- requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the
planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity
with a billion tiny cuts.
So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of
the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded?
It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth. The voracious and
insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise
the police power to prevent us from living free lives.
It is as Bastiat said: the real cost of the state is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that
don't exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into
existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The state has looted us just as surely as
a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.
Point 4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism
means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures
all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers
are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.
In the case of the United States, in the last three years, we've seen giant banks, pharmaceutical
firms, insurers, car companies, Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, and quasi-private mortgage
companies enjoying vast privileges at our expense. They have all joined with the state in living
a parasitical existence at our expense.
Point 5. Economic planning is based on the principle of autarky.
Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the
economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in
order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population.
Look at the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. We would be supremely naive to believe that
these wars were not motivated in part by the producer interests of the oil industry. It is true of
the American empire generally, which supports dollar hegemony. It is the reason for the North American
Union.
Point 6. Government sustains economic life through spending and borrowing.
This point requires no elaboration because it is no longer hidden. In the latest round, and with
a prime-time speech, Obama mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools,
bridges, and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match
up needed work with jobs.
Hello? The schools, bridges, and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained
by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because
the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of
other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in
the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.
As for the rest of this speech, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. But
no government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much, and created as much
fake money as the United States, all thanks to the power of the Fed to create money at will. If the
United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.
Point 7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.
Have you ever noticed that the military budget is never seriously discussed in policy debates?
The United States spends more than most of the rest of the world combined. And yet to hear our leaders
talk, the United States is just a tiny commercial republic that wants peace but is constantly under
threat from the world. Where is the debate about this policy? Where is the discussion? It is not
going on. It is just assumed by both parties that it is essential for the US way of life that the
United States be the most deadly country on the planet, threatening everyone with nuclear extinction
unless they obey.
Point 8. Military spending has imperialist aims.
We've had one war after another, wars waged by the United States against noncompliant countries,
and the creation of even more client states and colonies. US military strength has led not to peace
but the opposite. It has caused most people in the world to regard the United States as a threat,
and it has led to unconscionable wars on many countries. Wars of aggression were defined at Nuremberg
as crimes against humanity.
Obama was supposed to end this. He never promised to do so, but his supporters all believed that
he would. Instead, he has done the opposite. He has increased troop levels, entrenched wars, and
started new ones. In reality, he has presided over a warfare state just as vicious as any in history.
The difference this time is that the Left is no longer criticizing the US role in the world. In that
sense, Obama is the best thing ever to happen to the warmongers and the military-industrial complex.
The Future
I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In
many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest
the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization,
those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they
want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children
on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to
be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.
It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number
one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution
that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.
How many people fall into this category? It is more than we know. The movement is intellectual.
It is political. It is cultural. It is technological. They come from all classes, races, countries,
and professions. This is no longer a national movement. It is truly global.
And what does this movement want? Nothing more or less than sweet liberty. It does not ask that
the liberty be granted or given. It only asks for the liberty that is promised by life itself and
would otherwise exist were it not for the Leviathan state that robs us, badgers us, jails us, kills
us.
This movement is not departing. We are daily surrounded by evidence that it is right and true.
Every day, it is more and more obvious that the state contributes absolutely nothing to our wellbeing;
it massively subtracts from it.
Back in the 1930s, and even up through the 1980s, the partisans of the state were overflowing
with ideas. This is no longer true. Fascism has no new ideas, no big projects-and not even its partisans
really believe it can accomplish what it sets out to do. The world created by the private sector
is so much more useful and beautiful than anything the state has done that the fascists have themselves
become demoralized and aware that their agenda has no real intellectual foundation.
It is ever more widely known that statism does not and cannot work. Statism is the great lie.
Statism gives us the exact opposite of its promise. It promised security, prosperity, and peace;
it has given us fear, poverty, war, and death. If we want a future, it is one that we have to build
ourselves. The fascist state will not give it to us. On the contrary, it stands in the way.
In the end, this is the choice we face: the total state or total freedom. Which will we choose?
If we choose the state, we will continue to sink further and further and eventually lose all that
we treasure as a civilization. If we choose freedom, we can harness that remarkable power of human
cooperation that will enable us to continue to make a better world.
In the fight against fascism, there is no reason to be despairing. We must continue to fight with
every bit of confidence that the future belongs to us and not them.
Their world is falling apart. Ours is just being built.Their world is based on bankrupt ideologies.
Ours is rooted in the truth about freedom and reality. Their world can only look back to the glory
days. Ours looks forward to the future we are building for ourselves.
Their world is rooted in the corpse of the nation-state. Our world draws on the energies and creativity
of all peoples in the world, united in the great and noble project of creating a prospering civilization
through peaceful human cooperation. We possess the only weapon that is truly immortal: the right
idea. It is this that will lead to victory.
"All of the leftists out themselves by stating Communists are Fascists."
I have only heard leftists
vehemently deny that communists are fascists. I have never heard a leftist say that communists
are fascists. Do you have a link?
BTW, what could possibly be more fascist than re-education camps?
The State is that which is controlled by the nation in question. A Government is not the state,
nor is it the nation. A government is a secular organization emplaced to impose a set of rules
that benefit one nation over all other under the same government.
The failure of the west is not that it allows any one given state to control the power, but
that it allows secular governments dominante and forcibly submit all nations to it's demands by
a foreign nation. The argument against the state is one that decries the European dominance in
the US. It's an anti-European control in European created countries narrative.
The state that is allowed to exist and hold power within the US is not the state of her citizens
or the nations they consist of. It is a foreign state claiming rightful sovereignty through both
economic terrorist and threats of force and active persecution.
The US has been under the rule of a global criminal cartel for decades now. That cartel is
a nation onto it's own, and it uses deception, propaganda and economic means to hide it's existence.
It is successful because it controls the media, which is the largest propaganda outlet to have
ever been devised. It can chose whom to promote and whom to deny the right to exist. We are at
this very moment reading an article from one of it's propaganda arms on a site controlled by a
different proganda arm that it also controls.
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.
POLITICO) Donald Trump dug deeper into the archives Friday to point out Hillary Clinton's
complicated history of racially divisive politics, including her infamous "super-predators"
comment from the 1990s.
"The Clinton's are the real predators…" Trump wrote in a tweet
linking to an Instagram video.
The video begins with Hillary Clinton in 1996, defending her husband's controversial crime
bill, which has long been criticized for its impact on minority communities with respect to
mass incarceration.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/trump-clintons-are-the-real-predators/#hCaMDGFQDlFMqhZS.99
"... her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself. ..."
...She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds she now was castigating.
Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top 20 donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has
invested in Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge
fund. These donors are, as the website Truthout's
William Rivers Pitt notes, "the ones who gamed the
system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash
while making a financial killing in the process."
They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid
for speeches and appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more than $125 million
since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island,
catching a glimpse of the towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone
so deeply tethered to the financial and business class – who moves so often and so easily among its
swells – to fight hard to check their predatory appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and
stand up for the working people who are their prey?
Consider the two Canadian banks with financial
ties to the Keystone XL pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary Clinton.
Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech
sector. Or the
more than $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying for fast-track trade.
According to TIME magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, in 2014, "Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements
came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time… In all,
the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress
that same year."
Then look at
David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business Times, especially the
revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department "approved $165 billion
worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation,
according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data… nearly double
the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department
during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar,
each of which "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the
department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil
liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery
systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton
Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, "In all, governments and corporations
involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million
and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments
to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation
publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting
impossible."
The Washington Postreports that among the approximately 200,000 contributors there have
also been donations from many other countries and corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders,
the odious Blackwater Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame.
Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told David Sirota:
"The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the
Clintons was to give to this foundation."
We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as others have written,
at least we know who was doling out the cash, in contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling
millions in "dark money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich.
... ... ..
We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton became the willing
agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually
cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions.
Thanks to documents that came to light last year
(one even has a handwritten note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you have read
this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton
to support repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from
being victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a wave of Wall Street
mergers.
As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in
The Guardianand
Pam and Russ Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury Robert
Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal and soon left office to join Citigroup,
the bank that turned out to be the primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed,
Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S. finance. Rubin, meanwhile,
earned $126 million from the bank over ten years.
According to
The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in Democratic policy circles" and,
as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
for president…"
Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois, was weaned on the social
ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we
have her word for it and the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying goes,
"in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever
you can."
But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's acculturated class
– that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our capital who may have come from the hinterlands
but can hardly resist the seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing mindset
is: It's important to do good but more important to do well.
Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer – "which is precisely why she might be a
particularly effective one." But her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture
of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos,
one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself.
... ... ...
Sep_Arch • 9 months ago
The Clinton foundation is basically a money-laundering operation for an influence-peddling scam.
When Hillary is President, just as when she was Senator and Secretary of State, she will base
her decisions mostly on what will put more money into her family's pockets. After all, they are
hobnobbing with billionaires now. She will tell herself she is "pro-business" and being "realistic"
as she guts the middle class and puts all of her power behind the TPP, big corporations, and Wall
Street. And too many liberals will remain deaf, dumb and blind....
Guest Reader • a year ago
I will not be supporting Clinton either because of the financial interests behind her. Also because
of the record of the Democrats on many issues over the years, a group she has been deeply with
... so this is not entirely about Clinton herself, but even Obama, you could say, since the two
were fairly similar policy-wise, and now we've had eight years of this already.
I don't want more of the same. Plus, her campaign is based on this mythology that the country
is doing so much better, economically, and nothing could be further from the truth. This mythology
being pushed, because she running for office following a Democrat's administration, and one in
which she has been part of.
Again, to me, this is about domestic economics. I am deeply disappointed and exhausted by the
health care dispute. We should have an improved expanded Medicare for all, and, with dental and
vision, like any other developed nation.
We should NOT be going into more of these so-called "free" trade agreements. They are destroying
the standard of living for Americans, hitting people at the bottom the hardest.
vallehombre • a year ago
The current system allows a range of only two possibilities in electoral choices - between the
far right and the farther right.
HRC is channeling Goldwater via PNAC and then some while Sanders is Eisenhower light at best,
trying to catch some Huey Long soundbites on the way by. Yet we are supposed to act as if any
of this is news.
The allowed candidates are products of the state of our disappearing Republic and citizens
have been so effectively conditioned to accept our situation that we stumble to our destruction
as meekly compliant as the folks of an earlier generation shuiffled weeping into gas chambers.
There is no perspective presented here or anywhere other than that of our self identified elites
for the simple reason it has become the sole ethos of our existence. To fault a single person,
HRC in this case, for promoting arms sales and profiting personally from them ignores the structure
of the entire system, the anticipated "benefits" almost every citizens has come to expect as a
natural right (if not divinely ordained) and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little
more than a long, drawn out narcissistic display of communal suicide.
If it is true people create the government they deserve, or maybe accept, then the choice between
the far right and the farther right more accurately reflect the state of our nation than we care
or dare to admit.
oneski > vallehombre • a year ago
... and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little more than a long, drawn out narcissistic
display of communal suicide.
Quite the diagnosis! And there's the added bonus of enriching the lives of others whilst attempting
to postpone the inevitable.
The Swiss own one of the world's largest food companies and the world's largest elevator company.
It's a safe bet both their customers are easy to identify.
falken751 • a year ago
This is what is coming in this country politicians, better get ready for it, especially Clinton
and her Republican buddies. We don't need or want and millionaire politicians like her and her
husband.
"A massive and growing anti-austerity movement will take to the streets of London on Saturday,
June 20, with demonstrators demanding "an alternative to austerity and to policies that only benefit
those at the top."
Tens of thousands are expected to march from the Bank of England to Parliament Square on Saturday,
protesting the conservative government's "nasty, destructive cuts to the things ordinary people
care about-the [National Health Service], the welfare state, education and public services."
Organized by The People's Assembly-a politically unaffiliated national campaign against austerity-the
demonstration comes in the wake of UK elections in early May that saw the Conservative (Tory)
Party seizing the majority of Parliamentary seats and Prime Minister David Cameron sweeping back
to power."
Get ready politicians, and watch your backs.
Bassy Kims of Yesteryear • a year ago
The utter sellout of the Democratic Party over these last decades is entirely responsible for
the harrowing slide of the USA to the Right. The Republican flavor of bacon isn't even worth mentioning,
as those meatpuppets sold their souls many decades ago.
The rape of the poor and the middle class, the Neocon wars, the offshoring... all the worst
things in this nation stem directly from our betrayal by the Democratic Party. The upcoming passage
of the TPP, blacked out all across the MSM and across most of the alternative media, is proof
positive of this.
The sellout of the Democratic Party, and how we must respond to that sellout, must be the root
of any article on our oppression, and any article on how to respond to our national rape. Step
One is raising the consciousness of the DNC's rubes. They must understand their betrayal in order
to rise above it, and to consider alternatives such as Jill Stein, alternatives such as work stoppages
and demonstrations. Otherwise, there is no hope for America - none at all.
Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME • a year ago
All this is blatantly obvious and yet there are still so many Americans who remain clueless and
believe she has their interests at heart because they are gullible enough to believe her incredibly
empty campaign rhetoric. Well, there's the willful ignorance, coupled with the unbelievable shallowness
of basing her single qualification for the Oval Office on the type of genitalia she has, or on
name recognition alone, or the very telling amount of favoritism she gets in the CORPORATE media
and their need to vote for "the winning candidate," regardless of values and priorities. If a
voter wants genuine effort and concern in championing middle class causes, there is Bernie Sanders.
His voting record and history go back 30 years and it didn't just get completely revamped by focus
groups for the up-coming election. Simple logic should alert voters to Hillary, Inc.'s loyalties.
Why is it that in spite of all of Hillary's new-found list of concerns in her "populist" rhetoric
(which seem to only come about after Bernie Sanders speaks to them) her long list of Wall Street
campaign financiers still choose her as their favorite choice in the election? Could it be she
is only saying these things to pander for votes, with no intention of keeping any promises after
the election (just like Obama did)? To the corporate funders of her campaign it's just the cost
of doing business. They spend a few million on her and get billions back when she wins the White
House. It's a great return on investment, but just like Obama, the voters will always come a distant
second to Wall Street demands. This is NOT how you fix things in Washington. This is how you guarantee
"business as usual."
Avatar Ken • a year ago
"Can she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington - filled not with criminals but with
decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do what they think is good"
What a fcuking load of shite! They´re predominantly a load of rapacious, venal sociopaths who
should be in one of the prisions they love to build to house the poor. And Killary´s at the top
of the heap.
Popillius > pgathome1 • a year ago
I have no illusions about HRC - I loathe some of her positions. As for you boyz who fell for BHO
(in spite of his neoliberalism being on full display) - you haven't learned a thing. You are going
to honestly swallow that somebody heard that somebody heard from somebody in their "inner circle"
that Bill Clinton said that about his wife? What evidence do you have that is true? Do you not
see the mountains of ratfucking garbage out there about the Clintons? Their policies aside - which
can absolutely be loathesome - you are going to go online and breathlessly assert that you heard
someone heard that someone close to the Clintons said that? No wonder you fell for BHO so hard.
Sarah Jackson • a year ago
Democrats are in a lying frenzy, just as much so as the other faithful party. Moyers doesn't really
have anything left to say of any value unless it too is a lie of sorts. As an example, he revises
the obliteration of New Deal regulation by implying the President was mislead into doing so. No,
that's not what happened. And we don't have a Democracy. But when we don't live in a Democracy,
it is the news media's role to produce something less than honest. We're supposed to forget Sirota
was a part of AIPAC, and Moyers was part of an administration that served corporations dedicated
to genocide.
"Since I follow this year's presidential primaries very closely, I have
recently noticed the same physical characteristics of AIDS patients being
exhibited by Bill Clinton's appearance and persona. At first, anyone may
think he is getting up in age and the deteriorating features are natural.
However, on further examination, one has to conclude Bill Clinton is a very
ill man suffering from advanced stages of AIDS.
Like Charlie Sheen, Bill Clinton has lived a sexually promiscuous lifestyle
and has contracted AIDS. Hillary Clinton is doing everything she can to keep
it quiet. It is very apparent at almost all Hillary Clinton campaign rallies
and speeches where Bill is in attendance that he is a very sick man."
In Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince's new book, Bill & Hillary: So This is
That Thing Called Love, Clinton insiders claim that Bill slept with so many
women that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly forced him to get an AIDS test
from the doctor. This is because the former President "favored unprotected
sex."
No doubt neither of them are running on full health. Bill has been listless,
had a drastic weight loss, trembling hands, red blotches on his face and a
number of other definite signs of ill health, many which are common AIDS
symptoms.
Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton 'a vote
for a winner'.
I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to vote
for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really applies
with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason Brexit won is
that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no', gave 'permission'
for people to vote with their conscience rather than their pragmatism. In other
words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote for X, but a 'fun, but
risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very close or it looks like Y
will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they are pretty sure X will win.
Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to the
limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the
nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems to me
to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton as a sure
winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.
I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern
if you are the Clinton campaign.
They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most
part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't
necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who
don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince
themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her.
Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance will
be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying
Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real
fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).
On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds
"Vote For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last
week.
Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to
anticipate Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with
Hillary's and Donald's respective histories its hard for me to see how
Trump is more dangerous on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal
track record and wherever she could justify violent action in the past
she has, she keeps an enemies list, holds grudges and acts on them, all
thoroughly documented.
I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse,
given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but
like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who
really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration
has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war,
anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.
We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family
for the last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked
different emotions in me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city,
realestate tycoon posturing etc). However, I have
never
been frightened by him. To me, he is more like a bombastic, well
loved, show-off uncle.
Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A
bringer of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged
system that gives Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that
charges a poor child $600 for a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is
waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!
In my experience, people usually do not change for the better
as they age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of
Arc), patent inspector (Einstein)
It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing
all three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the
Libertarian agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find
it interesting that so many people scornful of identity politics
nevertheless seem to be as addicted as anyone to making this a horse
race between two candidates that has no real far-reaching consequences
beyond with each will or won't do in the Oval Office.
The Republican elite is clearly and strongly aligned with
Clinton, which reflects the status quo consensus.
It is certainly possible that the elected Republicans in the
House and the Senate will follow Trump or Trump will follow them.
But right now, that seems no more possible than that elected
Republican leadership (the ones most indebted to and aligned with
the donors/rest of the elite) will rebel at Trump and his takeover
of the party. Moreover, IF Trump's in, the Democrats will be forced
to enact the roll of "Democrat," thus guaranteeing some obstacle
somewhere.
Clinton is a Republican. Claiming she won't govern like a
Republican basically means relying on the Freedom Caucus to stop
her. I would just as soon not have to count on those guys to keep
throwing poop at the neoliberal walls - especially since they're
all being directly targeted in this election.
So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which
now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party
establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."–Lambert
I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices"
articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this.
They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.
They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean
it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy
shenanigans with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her
opponent there was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her
current opponent. It is true they won't have any obvious elections that
disprove their position out there, but when you are spending millions and
your opponent nothing and he is still within the margin of error with you
in the states that people are watching the closest…
Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to
drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory
parade, they may have more to fear from that.
One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy
addressed is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant
pressure, many proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any
Republicans. It's in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive.
They will forget come election day or not be registered because they
moved. Dean squeezed these districts. These districts are where
Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and even a little in 2012. Mittens is
a robber baron.
If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes,
what happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket
Republicans. Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if
they believe he is a special kind of super fascist will they bother to
vote for the allies of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary
wins and drops a seat in the Senate depending on turnout.
I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of
voter activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a
commanding Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next
year's governors and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead
or very close to it.
What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a
Republican pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from
coming out because she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a
spot where that can win on its own.
Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from
voting because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very
Democratic districts and transient voters will not impress. An
emboldened GOP congress will be a tough environment for Hillary, and
GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship especially for anyone
suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House Republicans have
to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated electorate.
They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate which
a literal donkey could do.
Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone
thinks that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean
anything but Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting
it, they are not paying attention. As much as both the Benghazi and
the email thing has them all flummoxed because the real crimes
involved with both are crimes they either agree with or want to
use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much, they will make
the case that this is a global slush fund because it is. And the
McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as it
would if she were indicted in a Court.
I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much
of the loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when
it is obvious that she keeps most of the money AND has no
coattails. Oh, they might not vote to impeach her, but that is
about it.
Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to
stifle investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018
is the 2012 cycle, and that is 2006 which should be a good year
for the Republicans (a credit to Howard Dean). It's a tough map
for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate in November, they
won't win it in 2018.
With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make
the Democrats very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering
the coattails they imagined.
She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral
college count might look good. But regardless of who wins
this sucker, I'm betting this is going to be one of the
lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential
election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more
people stay home than vote. And that is not a mandate.
The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She
doesn't even have to help the Dems get a majority for that
problem of conviction if impeached to rear its ugly head. No
way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in one party or
the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't
for her husband.
"... Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified Clinton as a threat ..."
Trump's presidential campaign had seized on the news of Clinton's
briefing to label her an "insider threat." The Trump campaign emailed reporters to
point out the news that an Army training presentation previously identified
Clinton as a threat, as the Washington Examiner previously
reported.
Clinton was investigated by the FBI for mishandling
classified information that appeared on a private email server she had set up, but
agency chief James Comey decided not to recommend charges.
Trump is attractive precisely because the Establishment fears and loathes him because 1) they
didn't pick him and 2) he might upset the neoconservative Empire that the Establishment elites view
as their global entitlement.
The Establishment is freaking out about Donald Trump for one reason: they didn't pick him.
The Establishment is freaking out because the natural order of things is that we pick the presidential
candidates and we run the country to serve ourselves, i.e. the financial-political elites.
Donald Trump's candidacy upsets this neofeudal natural order, and thus he (and everyone
who supports him) is anathema to the Establishment, heretics who must be silenced, cowed, marginalized,
mocked and ultimately put back in their place as subservient debt-serfs.
... ... ...
The utter cluelessness of the professional apologists and punditry would be laughable if it
wasn't so pathetic: the more you fume and rage that Trump is unqualified, narcissistic, singularly
inappropriate, etc. etc. etc., the more appealing he becomes to everyone who isn't inside the protective
walls of your neofeudal castle.
The people outside the cozy walls of the protected elites don't care if he is unqualified (by
the standards of those who get to pick our presidents for us) narcissistic, singularly inappropriate,
and so on--they are cheering him on because you, the multitudes of water-carriers for the Imperial
elites, the teeming hordes of well-paid, I-got-mine-so-shut-the-heck-up pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants,
apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists, are so visibly afraid that
your perks, wealth, influence and power might drain away if the 80% actually get a say.
Dear pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches
and apologists: we're sick of you, every one of you, and the neofeudal Empire you support. We
want you cashiered, pushed outside the walls with the rest of us, scraping by on well-earned and
richly deserved unemployment.
"... from my perspective the history of the last forty five years of senior economic advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough. ..."
"... This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston. ..."
"Economists Who've Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald
Trump"
Okay I am a guy that wouldn't piss on Trump if he
was on fire but this lead gets a little too close to "Praising
with Faint Damns" for my taste. I mean who on this list is
supposed to impress?
Okay Stiglitz. And I think Christine Romer had a medium
level role as did maybe her husband. But
from my perspective
the history of the last forty five years of senior economic
advisors to U.S. Presidents seems mostly a competition to
see who could piss on Great Society and New Deal remedies
in favor of "market-based incentives" fast enough.
I am not saying that this unanimity doesn't mean something
important. Just that as phrased we are talking kind of a low
bar.
mrrunangun :
, -1
This bunch has taken our economy and so our country from
its position in 1976 to its position in 2016. If you have
been among the educated 20% you have benefited from their
policy prescriptions over the past 40 years. The rest not
so much. This kind of WSJ establishment worship does not travel
well outside of NYC, DC, SF, LA, and Boston.
"Donald Trump now needs a swing of only 3 to 4 percentage points in key battleground states
to win this election" [
MarketWatch ]. "according to a new poll in Michigan, one of the key states in play, as well
as the latest polls in other key states… Meanwhile, Trump faces even smaller deficits in other
key battleground states. According to the polling averages calculated by Real Clear Politics,
Trump trails by just 5 points in Ohio, 4 points in Florida and 2 points in North Carolina. Recent
polls have also put him level with Clinton in Nevada and Iowa." Lambert here: My view is that
triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which now includes most of the political class, including
the press and both party establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."
Our Revolution: "The senator hailed as a major accomplishment his delegates' work crafting
what he called the "strongest and most progressive" platform in the Democratic Party's history.
And he vowed to implement many of its planks" [
Seven Days ]. Sanders: "'If anybody thinks that that document and what is in that platform
is simply going to be resting on a shelf somewhere accumulating dust, they are very mistaken,'
he said. 'We are going to bring the platform alive and make it the blueprint for moving the Democrats
forward in Congress and all across this country." So, more than "values." However, where there's
less to hate in the Dem platform than usual, it's hardly adequate for the challenges facing the
country. Now, if the operational definition of "bring the platform alive" means "incorporate all
the Sanders planks the Dem establishment voted down," I'd be a lot happier. I haven't heard that
yet.
"... The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with its persistent advocacy for people over corporations. ..."
"... a leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street "theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he predicts she'll be known as "Mrs. Wall Street" if elected. ..."
"... These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing its agenda. ..."
"... "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist and author Noam Chomsky , "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ..."
"... Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security - but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under her watch the system will stay rigged. ..."
The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not
that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power
anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission
as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and
they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to
understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of
corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with
its persistent advocacy for people over corporations.
Clinton, who once
served on the board of Walmart, the gold standard of predatory corporatism,
is so tight with corporate power that she's now making efforts to downplay her
relationships.
CNBC reports that she is postponing fundraisers with Wall Street
executives, no doubt concerned that voters are awakening to the toxic influence
of corporations on politics and government. Already in the awkward position of
explaining
six-figure checks from Wall Street firms for speaking engagements and
large charitable donations from major banks, Clinton realizes that she must
try to distance herself from her corporate benefactors.
And the fat cats fully understand. "Don't expect folks on Wall Street to be
offended that Clinton is distancing herself from them,"
CNBC reports. "In fact, they see it as smart politics and they understand
that Wall Street banks are deeply unpopular."
Indeed, everyone knows the game, and few are worried that Clinton - whose
son-in-law is a former Goldman Sachs executive who now runs a hedge fund -
is any kind of threat to the power structure. This explains why a
leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street
"theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he
predicts she'll be known as
"Mrs. Wall Street" if elected.
These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary
voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power
has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing
its agenda. And the fiction is propagated with impressive expertise, as
moderate, corporate-friendly Democrats are portrayed in the mainstream media as
"flaming liberals." Even though Barack Obama, for example, filled his
administration with Wall Street veterans and stalwarts after his election in
2008 - including Tim Geithner, Michael Froman, Larry Summers and a host of
others - he is frequently described as a liberal not just by those
on the right, but even in
mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist
and author
Noam Chomsky, "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but
allow very lively debate within that spectrum."...
This is what has happened during the centrist Obama administration, which
bailed out Wall Street without prosecuting even one executive responsible for
bringing about the 2008 economic collapse. It also happened in the centrist
administration of Bill Clinton, who was attacked by conservatives as an
"extreme liberal" while doing little to earn the designation. The Clinton
administration, with vocal support from the first lady, deregulated
telecommunications and the financial sector, pushed hard for passage of the
North American Free Trade Agreement - a tremendous gift to corporate interests
and a major blow to the working class - and passed legislation on
crime and welfare that was anything but liberal.
Such is the role that corporate America wants Hillary Clinton to play today.
Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a
hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the
left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve
Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security
- but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate
oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under
her watch the system will stay rigged.<
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clintons' multi-million-dollar
political machine operates.
This episode chronicles the Clintons' rise to power in the '90s on
a right-wing agenda; the Clinton Foundation's revolving door with Gulf state monarchies, corporations
and the world's biggest financial institutions; and the establishment of the hyper-aggressive "Hillary
Doctrine" while secretary of state.
Learn the essential facts about the great danger she poses, and why she's the US Empire's choice
for its next CEO.
"... You're confusing the left with Democrats. One of the clarifying things about this year is how clear it is that's not true. ..."
"... There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their completed ballot counted as they had marked it. ..."
"... Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances. ..."
And again, everyone is just pretending that the monumental election fraud that just occurred
is completely irrelevant. I'm mystified as to why. To me, it's a national catastrophe that a party
can simply suspend democracy completely, flip machine counts, deregister or reregister hundreds
of thousands of Bernie voters (and yes, it was very specifically Bernie voters), subtract votes
during the count and add them to Clinton in real time–and everyone accepts this as entirely legitimate?
Doesn't the complete cancellation of democracy by a dynastic family bother anyone??? Why even
vote?
Today's reminder that the Democratic Party (which, as Lambert points out below, is NOT the
same as "the left") did not nominate an Iraq War supporter through any kind of democratic process.
There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally
vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird
times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were
prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their
completed ballot counted as they had marked it.
My question is why should a progressive vote for Hillary Clinton?
If a progressive wants to show the strength of her movement and also the number of folks who
represent her values, a progressive would vote for Stein.
Perhaps it could be argued that if a certain progressive lives in a swing state, she should
consider voting for Clinton to prevent Trump from taking office, but that is no most progressive
voters.
But, in general, a progressive voting for a candidate such as Clinton who is so actively courting
big money and establishment Republicans. . .that would dilute and weaken the progressive presence
in my view.
Now that HRC released her taxes can we expect the transcripts, too? Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St.
and other special interests for 189 days http://iwilllookintoit.com/
Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he
made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances.
They got to Bernie somehow. Cf the scene in Godfather II where the mobster sees his Sicilian relative sitting in the back
of the room and changes his story.
That's very good. We're getting a lot of stories like this, including from our own #SlayTheSmaugs.
At some point, I'd like to aggregate them. Readers, do you know of any other field reports from Philly?
"... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
"... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
"... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
"... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
"... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
"... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
"... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
"... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
"... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States
will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.
We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand
for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?
Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s,
and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished
Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing.
He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably
by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential
campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky
Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but
he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.
As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures.
She used the terrible expression
"superpredators," supported
the crime bill and made a
hash of health
insurance reform. Liza Featherstone
talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which
is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the
rights of all women.
Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women
is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she
sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street.
The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign
as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed
the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary
Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."
On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war
hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated
for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died,"
she said and laughed loudly.
This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention,
something President Obama calls a "shit
show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist"
Madeleine Albright
declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.
Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims
she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not
released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.
... ... ...
Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations
in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal,
Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was
Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried
about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism
is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who
have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive
talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.
It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol
not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority
of women, then what is the good of a symbol?
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused
to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died"
Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel
or erase.
...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth
idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other
to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up.
Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency,
for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary
Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.
So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is
closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal
issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business,
Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use
progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen
of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election
will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.
In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren
quotes H.L. Mencken,
who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics
is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of
hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them.
I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed,
Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book,
Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote
for Hillary this time around.
... ... ...
Pierre Guerlain is a professor
of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.
"... the Clintons separated claims on economic production from that-which-was-produced. The claims went to one group- connected financiers, as the task of economic production remained with a freshly diminished working class. This politicized money system can be seen most clearly in the distance between those who received 'free' money in the Wall Street bailouts and those who didn't. ..."
"... Graph: the liberal economists who support Clinton-Obama-Clinton-omics have long claimed that job losses in 'low value-added' occupations like manufacturing would be made up for in the high value-added industries. In fact, employment for the prime-age workers who must work to live has plummeted since NAFTA was passed as low-wage and increasingly contingent service sector jobs have replaced manufacturing employment. This has required the robots-stole-their-jobs fallacy as productivity (the 'benefit' of automation) has fallen to five-decade lows. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve. ..."
"... As the Wall Street bailouts demonstrated, the public purse is virtually bottomless when social emergencies require rectification. The problem is that Hillary Clinton has spent her career poisoning the well for public expenditures in the public interest through both the misdirection that taxes are a binding constraint on public expenditures and by corrupting the public realm to the point where nothing works as advertised. ..."
"... Graph: The Clinton's state-capitalism works for their Wall Street patrons by transferring a larger piece of an economy in decline to it while using identity politics to divide working class interests. Liberal economists understood that resurgent capitalism would redistribute income and wealth upward but argued that 'we all benefit' from the rich being made richer. This was derided as 'trickle-down' economics when Ronald Reagan re-introduced the concept. As history has it, the actual result is broad economic decline where the already wealthy use state power to immiserate the 'bottom' 80% – 90% of the population. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve. ..."
"... Jay Gould once speculated that he "could hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." Rising liberal vitriol directed against working class supporters of Donald Trump pits the near-precariat with 'private' health insurance, pensions and recovered home equity against those without them with little apparent understanding of the broadly declining circumstances for all but the very rich (graph above). Democrats sold trade agreements, deregulation, privatization and balanced budgets as ways to 'grow the economic pie.' ..."
Those frightened at the prospect of Donald Trump being elected need to explain precisely where they
were when Democrats launched their three-decade-long class war against the great majority of the
American people. The Clintons passed NAFTA in 1994 after Republicans had been unable to get it passed
because of (righteous) opposition from organized labor. They 'freed' Wall Street from social accountability
while making it more dependent than ever on government bailouts. They cut social spending while increasing
the economic vulnerability of the poor. Both the dotcom stock bubble and the housing bubble began
under the Clintons and were caused by their finance-friendly policies. The Clintons are singularly
responsible for the Democrats' turn toward finance capitalism that has dispossessed the middle class,
immiserated the working class and left the poor to fight over the crumbs that fall to them.
In
the abstract, but never-the-less relevant, terms of economic theory the Clintons separated claims
on economic production from that-which-was-produced. The claims went to one group- connected financiers,
as the task of economic production remained with a freshly diminished working class. This politicized
money system can be seen most clearly in the distance between those who received 'free' money in
the Wall Street bailouts and those who didn't.
Bankers, hedge funds and private equity received billions
in low interest 'non-recourse' loans while the American political establishment urged austerity as
the moral antidote appropriate for the rest of us. The spectacle of bankers, with the support of
leading figures in the Obama administration, claiming that their clearly defrauded borrowers presented
a 'moral hazard' to them would be as implausible in fiction as it was true in fact.
Graph: the liberal economists who support Clinton-Obama-Clinton-omics have long claimed that
job losses in 'low value-added' occupations like manufacturing would be made up for in the high value-added
industries. In fact, employment for the prime-age workers who must work to live has plummeted since
NAFTA was passed as low-wage and increasingly contingent service sector jobs have replaced manufacturing
employment. This has required the robots-stole-their-jobs fallacy as productivity (the 'benefit'
of automation) has fallen to five-decade lows. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
The political establishment now circling the wagons around Hillary Clinton feeds at the trough
of money creation and depends on the misdirection that in 'normal' circumstances nature ties its
distribution to economic product produced. Upon his election in 1992 Bill Clinton claimed to have
inherited an 'unexpectedly' large budget deficit that tied his hands with respect to social spending.
The result was that Mr. Clinton abandoned his political program except inasmuch as the 'private'
economy that included Wall Street, arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical and telecommunications companies
and the insurance industry were 'freed' from social accountability as government funds and privileges
continued to be directed to them. The money was somewhere 'found' to bomb Iraq for eight years but
that needed to keep the poor living indoors and eating regular meals had to be cut because the Federal
budget deficit required it.
Upon election Barack Obama did essentially the same thing claiming a fiscal emergency in 2010
that required cutting Social Security and Medicare as he spent
$6 trillion – $14 trillion to save
Wall Street. That unlimited funds were found for Wall Street but none could be found to restore the
fortunes of the victims of Democratic 'trade' agreements and the predatory finance of Wall Street
renders evident the class-war being perpetrated by the Democrats. Liberal economists- court jesters
dressed in the garb of storied academics, prattled on about the 'zero-lower bound' (cartoon monetary
economics) as the Clintons and Barack Obama forewent the power of the public purse that FDR used
to create the Federal jobs programs that brought tens of thousands of desperate citizens out of the
misery of the Great Depression.
When Hillary Clinton outlined her 'economic' program she claimed that upon election she would
direct Congress to create ten million jobs rebuilding infrastructure without explaining how this
jibed with her public career as a deficit hawk, how rebuilding infrastructure would create ten million
jobs when Mr. Obama's program created at best a few thousand and why this wouldn't be just one more
Clinton scam to shove public resources to their cronies? As the Wall Street bailouts demonstrated,
the public purse is virtually bottomless when social emergencies require rectification. The problem
is that Hillary Clinton has spent her career poisoning the well for public expenditures in the public
interest through both the misdirection that taxes are a binding constraint on public expenditures
and by corrupting the public realm to the point where nothing works as advertised.
Graph: The Clinton's state-capitalism works for their Wall Street patrons by transferring
a larger piece of an economy in decline to it while using identity politics to divide working class
interests. Liberal economists understood that resurgent capitalism would redistribute income and
wealth upward but argued that 'we all benefit' from the rich being made richer. This was derided
as 'trickle-down' economics when Ronald Reagan re-introduced the concept. As history has it, the
actual result is broad economic decline where the already wealthy use state power to immiserate the
'bottom' 80% – 90% of the population. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Bill Clinton and / or Barack Obama could have created government jobs programs to employ dispossessed
workers at living wages just like FDR did. They could have even claimed the economic emergencies
they helped create as reasons for doing so. Mainstream economic theory has 'free-trade' beneficiaries
compensating those displaced by it. However, the Clintons and Mr. Obama chose instead to promote
the right-wing lie of a binding budget constraint to limit and / or preclude increased social spending
more effectively than the old-line Republican misery squad could have ever imagined possible. So
the question for Hillary Clinton is: will she prove her husband and Barack Obama to be ruling class
tools for lying about Federal budget constraints on social spending or will she maintain the lie
to renege on her promise of creating ten million jobs?
Jay Gould once speculated that he "could hire one-half of the working class to kill the other
half." Rising liberal vitriol directed against working class supporters of Donald Trump pits the
near-precariat with 'private' health insurance, pensions and recovered home equity against those
without them with little apparent understanding of the broadly declining circumstances for all but
the very rich (graph above). Democrats sold trade agreements, deregulation, privatization and balanced
budgets as ways to 'grow the economic pie.' With history having demonstrated otherwise, the Party
leadership now wants to change the subject. Barack Obama is selling the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership)
'trade' agreement as a geopolitical endeavor. Hillary Clinton now claims she will recover the ghost
of FDR that national Democrats spent the last forty-years exorcising. In the parlance: whatever.
The day after Election Day will be like any other in the sense that the problems of looming environmental
catastrophe, gratuitous wars and long-term economic decline will remain profit-generating 'opportunities'
in the realm of official concern. The American political establishment is calcified and out of ideas.
The problem is that the residual rationales and institutional tendencies lean toward catastrophe
generation. Democrats saved Wall Street in particular, and finance capitalism more generally, to
kill again. The most destructive militarists in modern history have attached themselves to Hillary
Clinton and the American war machine. Unless functional politics are recovered and asserted outside
the electoral system more of the same is the outcome that Western political economy is designed to
produce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book
Zen Economics
is published by CounterPunch Books.
Krauthammer is probably the most gifted neocon propagandist. Kind of
Joseph
Goebbels of neocons (I know, I know). But despite his considerable and undisputable gifts as a propagandist,
I can't read him without a shoot of Stoli. He is so predictably jingoistic that sometimes I think he
was hired by Putin to destroy any semblance of rational thinking in Washington establishment. An interesting
question is what he drinks to write such articles.
Notable quotes:
"... In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad). ..."
"... In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them. ..."
"... These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief. ..."
In the South China Sea, China is doing it's China thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.
In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's
answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad).
In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century
thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.
In Iran, the Iranians are doing what any sovereign nation would do when threatened by outside
forces (i.e. Israel and the US)- arm themselves in order to create a deterrent to invasion or
worse. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them, destroy the deterrent, and invade.
As far as Cuba is concerned, bomb them too (I guess).
These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to
the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the
reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer
influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world
is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not
the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the
"sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for
nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief.
"... The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration ..."
"... Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime. ..."
"... earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against President Bashal al-Assad. ..."
"... When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!" ..."
The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing
the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama
administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives
concerned about Donald Trump's "America First" foreign policy.)
Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official
considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called
for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime.
And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been
advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to
increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against
President Bashal al-Assad.
When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday
night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!"
"... You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. ..."
"... This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House. ..."
You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You
know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary
Clinton led the charge against Libya.
This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know,
damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United
States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin
put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White
House.
"... Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is forthcoming? ..."
"... THE PRESIDENT [Carter]. Well, the destruction was mutual . You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability. ..."
"... Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours. ..."
When dealing with foreign policy it's important to think on at least 3
levels:
Grand Structure
State
Domestic
Will a Clinton presidency be hawkish?
A. Grand Structure: No clear successor to the United States as hegemon
has emerged to stymie hawkish ambitions. China and Russia exist, of course,
but can do little to stop US ambitions. Verdict, yes, hawkish.
B. State: though US hegemony is in a period of decline, clearly the
United States' ruling class is still very much interested and capable of
using the Middle East as a demented sandbox to cause other nations to
continue to need its security services. China looms as a potential rising
hegemon. Verdict: yes, still hawkish.
C. Domestic: the ruling class investor coalitions backing Clinton are
very, very interested in a robust foreign economic policy that favor an
interventionist foreign policy. The segments of US society that are opposed
to this will not be represented or listened to in Clinton's domestic
coalition, either: declining industries, the working class/labor. The
professional 10% that Thomas Frank identifies as the broader Dem base tends
to acquiesce to Democratic-led wars. Without a reborn, and far more
militant, anti-war movement, the verdict has to be: yes, Hawkish.
The professional 10% and much of middle class america, by and large,
doesn't serve in the military and doesn't encourage or let their kids
serve either, so they're ok with war. It also seems that the PTB through
a combination of corporate media marginalization, robust police state
repression, and the lack of conscription has minimized the impact of any
anti-war movement.
longer term movement politics to take power, at least before the PTB
blow us all up?
"[W]e should expect Clinton to shape her foreign policy to neutralise the
threat to her nomination in 2020 from the left of her party. So forget
Hillary the hawk. To consolidate her Democrat base she will be even more
cautious abroad than Barack Obama has been"
For the moment ignoring Obama's nuclear weapons policy and NATO
belligerence, don't I wish!
But this sounds very voluntaristic to me, as though the US doesn't face a
problem with its empire that might appear to oblige belligerence. For example,
if the case is valid that the US has much reason to fear economic consolidation
between Europe and Asia, then Clinton/Kagan/Nuland et al are servants of
empire, not mad dogs. If, as some say, such a consolidation would undermine
dollar hegemony, maybe they feel the script is written. That doesn't mean I
don't oppose them, it just means opposing them involves a lot more than being
for peace, nonviolent resolution of disputes and such.
Mike Whitney over at Counterpunch has an interesting article reviewing
Brzezinski's new book, The Broken Chessboard, with Brzezinski explaining that
the US has lost its ability to be the indispensable nation. Maybe HRC will
listen. Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/25/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-up-on-empire/
When has Clinton ever listened to anyone who wasn't promoting war, war,
and more war? Expecting Clinton to respond like Carter in respect to foreign
policy is as fruitless as expecting her foundation's "charitable works" to
be comparable to Carter's work with Habitat for Humanity.
Carter: 4 years in office without a single shot fired in anger,
imagine the moral and political fortitude required to keep the
Military-Monster-That-Must-Be-Fed at bay like that for so long. Yes
Carter played lots of footsie with special ops but perhaps we awarded the
recent Peace Prize to the wrong guy.
so it was the least bloody of any president? and carter did
pressure latin american dictators on human rights, unlike
presidents before and after him. east timor was the worst, no
defense of him there. we sent money to support the indonesian
regime. but carter was no clinton.
Clinton and Reagan didn't just appear fully formed. Carter
started trashing unions before they abandoned the Democrats in
1980. Carter created the Carter doctrine.
Bill is just a personally immoral version of Carter who is
capable of self reflection, but Jimmy was building those houses
to atone.
Carter still came in a strong post Vietnam Era. Sending
soldiers abroad wouldn't be too popular.
So many Carter favs (Timor, the Shah is an island of
stability, defending Samoza…) but this has to be
one of the best
:
Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that
information on those American servicemen who are missing
in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then
this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that
country, if that information is forthcoming?
THE PRESIDENT [Carter].
Well, the
destruction was mutual
. You know, we went to
Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to
impose American will on other people. We went there to
defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't
feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves
or to assume the status of culpability.
My opinion: we went to Vietnam to keep the Golden
Triangle open for heroin trafficking to fund all the
covert CIA ops in the rest of the world. It shut down when
we lost. US then opened up Afghanistan route, thanks to
Jimmy Carter and Brezinski. Which is why we are where we
are today in Afghanistan. Just can't shake the poppy
monkey.
The problem with your theory is that the shift in
heroin production to the Golden Triangle didn't occur
until after the US involvement. Same as in Afghanistan.
And in Nicaragua. I.e., the pattern is the US invades
for other reasons, then the CIA starts running dope to
funnel guns to "freedom fighters", then drug use spikes
in the US.
Read Alfred McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia.
– The Obama administration's reckless foreign policy, particularly the
toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the
rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words,
Washington's enemies have emerged in response to Washington's behavior.
Obama can only blame himself.
was editorial or a quote from Brz himself, and the top headline was from
2012:
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The man behind Obama's foreign policy
Posty Masters
1
day ago
Good job. If every one can just get one
person to change, you will not have to put
up with more of the same. Lies, cheating
and selling out the American People.
Munchmá Fuzi Qüchi
5
days ago
She is straight up evil as fuck. If you can't see
that something is wrong with you.
John Henke
2
days ago
She has no soul.
cougar351
1
hour ago
She a trail of destruction. Imagine a state
official stealing money from the Haitians they
sorely needed for survival after the devastation
created by the massive earthquake. Very crooked
Verbatim reenactment of highlights
of the deposition transcript. For more information and to
support this project, please go to
www.ClintonEmailsOnFilm.com
Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them:
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
"... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
"... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
"... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
"... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
"... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
"... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
"... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
"... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would
be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic
positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts
of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group
is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin
and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy
and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote
for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department
official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad.
Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding
that "he has already damaged it considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify
himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably
if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1
interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed
the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton
over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders -
many of whom are not considered neocons - that
was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support
a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's
"admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter
Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick,
a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official;
and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department
official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable
of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere
between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values
abroad.
"1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't
vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams,
a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle
East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives,
said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.
"If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate,
and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially
when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote
in an email.
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several
neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on
human rights and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when
Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might,
wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."
Not a criticism, just an observation.
She
acknowledged she deleted thousands of personal emails and said she turned over hard copies of
messages to the State Department that she deemed to be work related.
Abedin
was an assistant editor for a dozen years for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for the
Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. The institute – founded by her late father and
currently directed by her mother – is backed by the Muslim World League, an Islamic
organization in the Saudi holy city of Mecca that was founded by Muslim Brotherhood leaders.
At
her father's Saudi-financed Islamic think tank,
WND
reported
, Abedin worked alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, who is accused of financing
al-Qaida fronts.
Huma
served on the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs's editorial board from 2002 to 2008.
In
2003, U.S. News and World Report documented that accompanying the MWL's donations, invariably,
are "a blizzard of Wahhabist literature."
In
the early 1990s, evidence began to grow that the foundation was funding Islamist militants in
Somalia and Bosnia, and a 1996 CIA report detailed its Bosnian militant ties.
Thanks very much for this handy compendium!