Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

US Presidential Elections of 2016: from primaries to election day

November 8 as a referendum on neoliberal globalization

Trump's candidacy = sovereignty + NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism + WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple...

The main issue in this election is that the Neoliberal Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of "Coke Pepsi" two party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory details of their corruption and malfeasance

Neoliberal MSM and fifth column of neocons in Washington are in panic: as more people understand that this is a choice between petty criminal and Mafiosi, neocon Hillary, who was instrumental in rape and killing of women and children in Libya and Syria might lose to Paleoconservative Trump

Version 4.2 (Nov 08, 2016)

 "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Or perhaps, as Bush's critics might say,
"Elect Clintons once, shame on you. Elect Clintons twice ... shame on me." (picked from Times)

News Crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite Recommended Links Two Party System as Polyarchy Donald Trump Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Bernie Sanders: A turncoat socialist Anti Trump Hysteria Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
DNC emails leak Hillary health issues Hillary Clinton email scandal "Clinton Cash" Scandal: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry Hillary wet kiss with neocons Obama: a yet another Neocon "Fuck the EU": neocons show EU its real place Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Hillary role in Libya disaster
Bill sexapades and Hillary Is Hillary Clinton a toxic manager? Hillary as a pathological liar Lock her up movement Hillary role in Syria bloodbath Non-Interventionism Trump foreign policy platform Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite The Deep State
Media-Military-Industrial Complex Neoconservatism Demonization of Putin  American Exceptionalism New American Militarism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton
The Iron Law of Oligarchy Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite  Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Myth about intelligent voter Pluralism as a myth Libertarian Philosophy Nation under attack meme Demexit Trump on immigration
Principal-agent problem Corporatist Corruption Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on neoliberalism Ethno-linguistic Nationalism Corporatism National Security State Predator state Machiavellism Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few
Betrayal by Bernie Sanders of his supporters Superdelegates at Democratic National Convention Jeb "Wolfowitz Stooge" Bush US Presidential Elections of 2012  Mayberry Machiavellians Politically Incorrect Humor Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc

Note: due to the size introduction was moved to a separate page November 2016 as a referendum on neoliberal globalization

This election is about the backlash against neoliberalism that became the dominant ideology of the ruling elite in the USA since 1980th. At this point blue color workers became sick of Demorats (aka Neoliberal Democrats) who are betraying them after each elections ("Change we can believe in" in worlds of the king of "bait and switch" Obama) and expecting still they will vote for Democratic as they have nowhere to go (Clinton strategy). They want to show middle finger to Clinton and other neoliberal criminals who deprived them of work, of dignity, of health (heroine epidemic is hitting the USA really hard). It's a class war all over again. Note how neoliberal media tried to misrepresent it accusing Trump supporters of racism, bigotry, and all other sins to mask anti-neoliberal backlash of the US population, and the revolutionary situation in the county, when the elite lost the control of the population. Which really somewhat reminds me the last days of the USSR when communist propaganda stopped working and people start seeing the "Politburo" as "naked king" -- a bunch of corrupt priests of obscure religion, who do not believe in the ideology they promote for "shmucks", only with their own and their families well-being. that their sons and daughters attend Western universities and their wives are shopping in Paris.

It is not an exaggeration to see in 2016 Presidential election as a referendum on neoliberal globalization. But the political power still belongs to  Neoliberals, which dominates both the government and the economy (transnationals are the cornerstone of neoliberal world order). It's a big question if the American people will be able to change neoliberal dogma, the official civil religion of the USA without a violent revolution...

The great Trump political breakthrough was consolidating the white working class and white middle class vote. At last "clintonization" (sellout of the Party to Wall Street whichwas initialed by Bill Clinton, converting it into the party of "soft neoliberalism" which at times was undistinguishable from "hard neoliberalism" )  of Democratic Party backfired.  Demexit -- abandoning of Demorats by white working and middle class is now a reality.

Writing in Politico, Georgetown political scientist Joshua Mitchell has a long, important take on the deep meaning of Trump — and it’s probably not what you think:

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.

This is a clear repudiation of neoliberalism (aka "casino capitalism" or  Trotskyism for the rich) -- the secular religion to both Republican and Democratic parties adhere (while the term is prohibited from mass media -- can you imagine the Communist Party of the USSR would prohibit its members under the threat of purge to utter the word "communism" or call themselves "communists").  And that means that Trump is a threat to Washington neoliberal elite, the threat to neoliberal  Washington_Consensus, which  since 1980 (or even earlier) rules the place. That's why they fight and demonization of Trump is conducted by neoliberal media with such a fierce determination. That's why such a tremendous efforts and money are spend on propelling sick and unprincipled establishment candidate -- Hillary Clinton. A warmonger neoconservative, who is a staunch neoliberal (like her husband Bill Clinton).

The US neoliberal elite ("creator class" or "Masters of the Universe" in neoliberal jargon) have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power put by "enlightened corporatism" of the New Deal, and for 36 years managed to redistribute wealth up to the level that has no historical presidents. As a result social stability is in danger and "the rest" (or Untermensch, or "takers"/"welfare queen" in neoliberal jargon) are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be an outsider. (Romney-Ryan 'makers vs. takers' rhetoric helped spawn Donald Trump Washington Examiner)

This idea of low-income "takers" lay beneath Mitt Romney's view that the 47 percent of adults in the U.S. who owed no federal income tax were therefore "dependent upon government" and "who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…."

...

But "taker" is a slur also when aimed at recipients of government benefits. Millions of "takers" are people who work 40 hours, but at low wages, and thus receive the earned-income tax credit. Will you blame their low wages on them? Perhaps they got horrible education thanks to incompetent government, or were just never blessed with marketable skills.

Some percentage of the 47 percent are World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam Veterans, who after serving their country, put in decades of work, and now live off the Social Security they paid into, without earning enough to owe federal income tax.

The "takers" include widows receiving food stamps, the ill being kept alive by Medicaid, and people drawing on unemployment because their employer got up and moved to Mexico.

More importantly, many of those on welfare or disability hate that they are dependent. They want to be working.

Are there "welfare queens," lazy able-bodied moochers, and people scamming disability? Yes. But lumping in 47 percent of the country with these scoundrels is as illegitimate lumping all businessmen in with the failed bankers who depend on bailouts.

This wasn't just Ryan's mistake. Conservatives broadly have equated low income with dependency. The conservative belief that the market tends to reward skill and diligence often mutates into a belief that poverty reflects some sort of turpitude.

That view helped give birth to Donald Trump, who has tapped into the working class that Ryan and Romney had pushed away.

Globalization and free trade are fast becoming dirty words. That’s because they were  culprits for major  shocks — like the 2008 financial crisis. In the United States alone, median household income has been practically stagnant for about three decades, the labor market continues to be anemic, manufacturing jobs have been lost, and many have experienced a significant deterioration in living standards.

Much of the post-Brexit and primary election conventional wisdom seems to be stuck in a political narrative in which the Brexit vote and the rise of Trumpism in the United States are seen as symbols of the populist revolution. These symbols are combined with a nationalist tide has been sweeping not only the United Kingdom and the United States, but also many other parts of Europe, including Poland, Hungary, France, The Netherlands and Scandinavia, not to mention, Russia, Turkey, India and Israel.

According to this narrative, economic insecurity and cultural anxiety that reflect sociodemographic trends have given momentum to ethnonationalism and religious separatism in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The Rust Belt is pitted against New York City, and the Midlands against London.

All this means that the crisis of neoliberalism, which started in 2008 now obtained political dimension, when the institutions created by neoliberalism are under attacks from the disgruntled population. The power of neoliberal propaganda, the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities to push forward neoliberal globalization started to evaporate. And the fight against neoliberal globalization is not easy and it is not accidentally Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee and neoliberal MSM unlashed unprecedented campaign of blackmail against Trump.  The fact is, Sheldon Wolin not accidentally calls neoliberalism "inverted totalitarianism" . It's a system where corporate power has seized all of political  levers of control. In fact, under neoliberalism, there is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We also have lost our privacy. And under Obama, an assault against civil liberties has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out.

This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:

  1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity). "Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
  2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market value.
  3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.)
  4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
  5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.
  6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about the level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative of the state.

So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling the vacuum, as ith the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism" of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.

The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up the USSR) and far right ideologies.

It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time. Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and, specifically, the neoliberal globalization.

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.

Neoliberal poison destroys a society and lifts the politicians with nationalistic bend like Trump. First, neoliberalism dislocated the working class, de-industrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system.

I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind Trump. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative neoliberal MSM 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.

We need to be aware of neoliberal brainwashing. I mean, this whole debate over the DNC WikiLeaks emails disclosure is insane. The key question here is not who leaked emails, but whether they are authentic or not. They are. As well as DNC dirty laundry exposed those long emails -- you should read them. They're really appalling, and exposes the way the Democratic primaries were rigged. Tricks used included the mechanism of the superdelegates (which unlawfully declared their allegiance very early creating pro-Clinton pressure of voters) , the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, and the huge amounts of corporate money and money of super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. This faux feminism on which Hillary Clinton based her campaign is another propaganda trick. She si hostile to both women and children. Cold like any sociopath.  The fact is, Clinton has a track record of hurting US children: she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70% of the original recipients were children.

If is important to understand that the rise of nationalism, the phenomenal success of Trump is just a form of backlash against neoliberalism. 

Continued...


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

Notable quotes:
"... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
"... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
"... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
"... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
"... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
"... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
"... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
"... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
"... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
"... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
"... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
"... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
"It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

Kill it before it grows.

https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
Purple is the color of royalty!

Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America?

If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!

X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
You say
Grimaldus ,

"Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

"The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

From the article By Laurent Guyénot ,

*Who Are The Neoconservatives?*

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

. . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

Great avatar!

GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
Always wondered about that

Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
Kirk2NCC1701 Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 6:23 AM ,

Kirk2NCC1701 Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 6:23 AM ,

FYI... An Israeli investigative journalist (and anti-Zioinist) Richard Silberstein gives us this treasure trove on the FIVE EYES in Israel, the NSA and IDF:

NSA Maintains Secret "Five Eyes" Satellite Facility in Israel

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/02/09/nsa-maintains-satellite-facility-in-israel/

The 49" interview (in Hebrew) is here: https://youtu.be/3TBxWlwv0PU

Secret NSA Satellite Facility Located at IDF Base in Occupied East Jerusalem

February 10, 2014

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/02/10/secret-nsa-satellite-facility-located-in-jerusalem/

New York Jewish Federation Executive, Veteran of IDF Cyber-War Unit 8200

April 3, 2014

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/04/03/new-york-jewish-federation-executive-is-veteran-of-idf-cyber-war-unit-8200/

Haaretz Promo for IDF Cyber-War Unit 8200

April 21, 2014

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/04/21/haaretz-promo-for-idf-cyber-war-unit-8200/

Unit 8200: Teaching NSA a Thing or Two About Dark Arts

September 17, 2014

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/09/17/unit-8200-teaching-nsa-a-thing-or-two-about-dark-arts/

IDF Unit 8200 Counter-Offensive Begins

September 19, 2014

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/09/19/idf-unit-8200-counter-offensive-begins/

IDF Unit 8200 Commander Expels Refusers

January 26, 2015

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/01/26/idf-unit-8200-commander-expels-refusers/

Other Related Articles can be found on the website. How this guy can still operate is amazing. He'd better not stray too far into the gray zone of reporting, is my guess. Gutsy guy. More than can be said for US or Western Presstitutes.

chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
"PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

... ... ...

Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

Got that wrong as well.

Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

[Nov 12, 2016] NATO mulls worst-case scenario in case Trump pulls US troops out of Europe – report - RT News

Nov 12, 2016 | www.rt.com
NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe, as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty. According to Spiegel magazine, strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more German defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11

"For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.

During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."

"We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.

The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.

Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."

Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.

The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.

Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this ourselves," he argued on Thursday.

If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm, a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.

Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032, Spiegel reported.

The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.

Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.

"No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.

Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades, expected to deploy in Europe by January 2017.

Read more EU Commission president wants clarity from Trump on NATO, trade

[Nov 12, 2016] Trump's national security guru

Notable quotes:
"... Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN. ..."
"... " ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic" ..."
"... When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you. ..."
"... Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up. ..."
www.cnn.com

Flynn, like Trump, sees Russian president Vladimir Putin as someone the US can do business with. In December, Flynn attended a banquet in Moscow where he sat next to Putin. He also has appeared on the Kremlin TV mouthpiece, Russia Today (which Flynn has compared to CNN).

If Flynn is Trump's national security advisor or secretary of defense we can expect him to push for a closer relationship with the Russians; a punitive policy on Iran -- and a more aggressive war on Islamist militants around the world. These views mesh well with what we have heard from Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

Daniel, 35 minutes ago

Mr. Bergen : "American Islamists, Flynn claims, are trying to create "an Islamic state right here at home" by pushing to "gain legal standing for Sharia." Flynn cited no evidence for this claim." !!!?? Really ?? "German court lets off 'Sharia police' patrol in Wuppertal" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488

SimpleStupid

Not a bad article up until the last paragraph. Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN.

And "derail the deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons"? What is this, backwards day?

Ron Lane

" ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic"

hanklmarcus

Iraq was a failure , But attacking IRAN will not be ??????????? FOOLS

CNN User

When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you.

We don't accept your values and are tired of having ours oppressed.

LizardKing

@Lenny Good - Ukraine should clearly be dominated by Russia and who gives a s t about Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Call me when Russia is threatening Poland

Dwright :

Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up.

[Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear.

Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
sou812 3h ago 0 1 The Democrats abandoned the only people that are paying the bills in this country - period! And the working class sent a message loud and clear. The arrogance and ignorance of he left is astounding: focused on the novelty of getting a woman elected to the presidency even though she was the worst of choices. An arrogant, dishonest, bought and paid for Wall Street elitist like her husband, they thought that her experience was enough to seal her success. Ta!
The Dem's have lost it all and it will take two decades to recover, if ever.

[Nov 11, 2016] Betrayal is punished...

Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com

garfield08

, 10 Nov 2016 12:4>
After 8 years of "no change" Obama, a president totally owned by the corporations, banks, big money etc. and the man who failed to do anything about that huge and ever widening wealth gap the Democrats were obviously out of favour with the poor working class. But the voters seem to have forgotten than Trump still stands for the Republicans and thats where he will enrol his cabinet from, he can not act alone. Those same weak, ineffective ultra right loonies that stood against Trump and made him look special will now stand with him in government. Its still money politics.

[Nov 11, 2016] Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen

Nov 11, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile: "You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen"

Tyler Durden Nov 11, 2016 2:55 PM 0 SHARES Liar, cheat, and fired CNN contributor Donna Brazile faced an angry crowd on Thursday night ... as Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton was crushed by the "least qualified candidate for President ever."

As The Huffington Post reports, Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as "a rip-roaring speech" to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.

"Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?" he asked, according to two people in the room. "You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself."

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

"You are part of the problem," he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump's victory by siding with Clinton early on . "You and your friends will die of old age and I'm going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy."

Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and "tell people there" why she should be leading the party.

Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange, and Brazile appeared to confirm the exchange also...

"As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings."

Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday's meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.

"The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won't let anyone else come in and change it up," said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely.

"The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed to Clinton's loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?"

Mutiny at the DNC? And where does Brazile go now? No TV network will hire a proven liar and cheat. There's no Democratic campaign for her to jump to like Wasserman-Schultz... So Brazile will probably find herself worling at The Clinton Foundation.

[Nov 11, 2016] Obama can pardon Clinton Foundation players without specified which crimes they committed

Nov 11, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
Susan Sunflower @ 48

Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do exactly that. My guess is, want to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure he will have to pass out plenty of pardons. Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then seal the testimony -- or never bother to get any testimony. So many games.

For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day in office, from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.

Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is, Giuliani has been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer would do if he was trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them he would be agreeing with the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong doing, and then change his mind once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.

With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is likely to come out of this.

h | Nov 11, 2016 2:53:37 PM | 56
Maybe I saw the question about a 9/11 investigation on the other thread, but someone here asked if this is true. Well, it appears to be on a burner -

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/trump-reopening-911-reversing-rome-in-bid-to-be-greatest-american-steward/

jdmckay | Nov 11, 2016 2:58:20 PM | 57
Ken Nari @ 55

From what I've read, prez pardon comes with explicit admission of guilt. Highly questionable either (or both) Clintons would accept that.

Mina | Nov 11, 2016 3:03:16 PM | 58
Simply brilliant
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
(it could be on the other thread, sorry)

Susan Sunflower | Nov 11, 2016 3:12:12 PM | 59
@ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55

I heard a podcast on Batchelor with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if there are no obvious likely criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot of "leniency" because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents, as I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the Foundation was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating; and others, foreign who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations, opening the possibility that if the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very very strict law) might proceed, and that they might well be investigated (prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.

The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a playground of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written policies on many practices ...

This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective action may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even before Hillary's loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011) memo. Unprofessional to the extreme.

It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365 for the next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be, I'm not looking for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the accusations/recriminations) I somehow thought they'd have been more careful with their "legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997, 2008 is a very long time to be operating without written procedures wrt donations, employment

from 11/08/2016, Batchelor segment page

[Nov 11, 2016] Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

Nov 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
Ed209 5h ago 2 3 Good article, but it fails to mention immigration as a further factor hammering the working class. Of course it's pc to pretend that immigrants create jobs rather than taking them etc etc. But I would put this question to any economist, journalist or politician who doesn't believe that immigration hurts the working classes: how would you like it if a million workers arrived, all qualified to your level or above in economics/journalism/politics, and all willing to work for much less than you make?

Of course, in the case of the UK it hasn't been one million, but more than three million. And in the case of the USA, untold millions (illegals alone are thought to number 10 million).

It's because economists, journalists and politicians never have to face this kind of competition for their own jobs that they are so keen on mass immigration. But low-skill/no-skill workers face this reality everyday. Nika2015 Ed209 4h ago 0 1 Telling it like it is...Bravo! Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Dana Todd Ed209 4h ago 0 1 There's a pretty in-depth analysis of immigration's effect on economy and workers/wages here http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature
Bottom line is, it's complicated, and not all immigrants are the same - or the same value to a country. Immigrants with college degrees definitely add to the GDP of their new home, typically estimated in six figures cumulative per individual contribution. Immigrants without college degree do place a drain on the country, through depressed wages, because there's parity (and since we haven't invested as much in our educations here, we are not as competitive to outside labor). Illegal immigrants cause a definite deficit, albeit not so big as to threaten an entire economy - but by creating an artificial competition they drive wages down.
I am by all measures a liberal and very open to immigration - I think we can't measure in dollars what we get in new ideas, new energy, culture, art, food, music - but for those who take a hard line look at the return/impacts, it's worth taking the time to understand the more complex story in the data.

[Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders

Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Paid Minion November 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm

The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders.

The DNC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Family Inc. starting in about 2008. Control the rulemakers/money flow, and you can control who the nominee is. At least that is the conventional thinking, and Clinton Inc. is nothing if not conventional.

To buy the DNC, she chose to go to the Wall Street banksters, and others. Essentially an "up front" bribe. No smoking gun needed to be created. They knew what they were paying for, without it being said.

(I'm curious to see how many "donations" the Clinton Foundation receives, now that she's been pushed out on an ice floe.)

They never anticipated a challenger who didn't need the DNC, or it's cash.

They ignored the stats showing how many people wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Just call them racist/sexist/dumbazz hicks, and call them "deplorables". Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.

She lost an election to DONALD TRUMP. Even without the airwaves filled with Republican attack ads. (Lack of RNC enthusiasm for Trump? Or a recognition that Hillary's negatives couldn't be covered in a 30 second commercial?).

If it wasn't for the Clinton's collective ego, and lust for power/money (after all, we all now that in the current state of affairs, the moneyed class drives policy), we'd all (well, all of us who don't live in the rarefied air of the 1%ers/Banksters) be celebrating the upcoming inauguration of President Sanders.

[Nov 11, 2016] Clinton raised $154 million in September for her campaign and the party. And people "getting the resources they needed"? Seems odd.

Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

oho November 10, 2016 at 7:06 pm

". Clinton raised $154 million in September for her campaign and the party. And people "getting the resources they needed"? Seems odd."

smells like the allegations thrown at the Clinton Foundation--insiders directing very generous contracts to other insiders. with competence or efficacy secondary.

Nothing to see of course.

Carolinian November 10, 2016 at 7:25 pm

How Podesta may have caused Clinton to weaken her position on Wall Street. New Wikileak shows he pushed her to show "love" for Obama rather than criticism of BHO's handling of reform

The next day, an OpEd under the byline of Hillary Clinton appeared at Bloomberg News. Obama's name was mentioned four separate times in a highly favorable light. Clinton said Obama had signed into law "important new rules" after the 2008 financial crash; she was going to "build on the progress we've made under President Obama"; "thanks to President Obama's leadership" the economy is now on "sounder footing"; and the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that Obama signed into law had "made important reforms, but there's more to do."

Since Bloomberg News is heavily read by people on Wall Street, this was a signal to them that Hillary Clinton would leave the bulk of her husband's cash cow deregulation in place by following in the footsteps of Obama. What Obama's administration had done in 2010 was to create the illusion of regulating Wall Street by proposing hundreds of vaguely worded rules in the Dodd-Frank legislation, then putting crony Wall Street regulators in charge at the SEC and U.S. Treasury to be sure the rules were never actually implemented in any meaningful way. (Under Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Treasury Secretary now sits atop a new financial stability body known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The crony Federal Reserve, which failed to see the crisis coming, was given enhanced supervisory powers over the largest Wall Street bank holding companies.) Obama even ignored one of his own rules in Dodd-Frank. It called for Obama to appoint a Vice Chairman for Supervision at the Federal Reserve to police Wall Street.[…]

There is another telling fact in the email. Hillary Clinton seems to have had very little to do with actually fashioning her policies. Another Clinton adviser, Dan Schwerin, indicates that WJC (William Jefferson Clinton, i.e. Bill Clinton) had edited the OpEd with "further refinements from policy team," but there is no mention that Hillary Clinton was involved in her own OpEd that would bear her byline.

So not just by Podesta but victimized by her philandering husband one last time? Awhile back Pat Lang suggested it was really Bill who pushed her into running. The impeach-ee needed his legacy redeemed.

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/11/new-wikileaks-email-podesta-may-have-cost-democrats-the-election-with-push-for-obama-legacy/

Tom November 10, 2016 at 7:53 pm

Regarding this part of the excerpt:

Hillary Clinton seems to have had very little to do with actually fashioning her policies.

This is a point that has irked me ever since I waded into the Podesta emails - how even the smallest public statement or even just a Tweet required numerous rounds of revisions, feedback, vetting and tweaking from the Clinton insiders.

It seemed that Clinton rarely had a fire in the belly on any particular position. It was whatever her team determined was the most politcally advantageous at the moment.

Maybe this is how most presidential candidates function, but it made me see Clinton as Presidential Robot Version 2016, programmed by her team to simulate the appearance of a person with convictions.

I'm sure she has some real convictions and I'm sure she has done real good in the world. But maybe Assange is right - she has been consumed by power and greed and was seduced by the possibility of more.

[Nov 11, 2016] Keith Ellison, Howard Dean offered as possible DNC chairs as Democrats seek to regroup

Nov 11, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com

In the wreckage of Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss, liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups have started plotting a major overhaul of the Democratic National Committee, with the aim of using the staid organization to reconnect the party with working-class voters it lost to President-elect Donald Trump.

Much of the talk since Tuesday's election has focused on selecting a new chairman, with the most frequently mentioned successor being Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who backed the primary bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

On Thursday afternoon, former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D) offered his service for a second tenure as DNC chairman, saying on Twitter: "The dems need organization and focus on the the young. Need a fifty State strategy and tech rehab. I am in for chairman again."

Evil Incarnate1956

I think the Republicans should get down on their knees and give thanks to God for Barack Obama. I'm serious.

He did great at getting himself elected, and he had some coattails when he was on the ballot. When he wasn't on the ballot, the Dems' election performance has been one unmitigated disaster after another- midterm epic-fails in 2010 and 2014, and Tuesday's election the frosting on the cake.

Where is the Democrats' bench strength? Where is their future? Besides Barack Obama, the face of their party today is Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.

Obama, by cramming Obamacare down people's throats against their will, and his executive order overreach, has taken a wrecking ball to the Democrat Party.

I hope the Democrats will adopt a strategy to continue the trend.

NewbieWaDoobie
Neat trick.....if you were to take the overtones of the media at large and the messaging coming from the HRC camp you can easily see why she lost the rust belt. I worked as a carpenter in South Bend, IN from about 2002-2008 and she was never going to win those people without a MESSAGE....when did she ELEVATE AND STUMP HARD for income equality and the platform....NEVER!!!! It was against her principles and the interests of the people who surrounded her and the DNC.....FOOLS!!!!!

Neoliberalism is DEAD....even the IMF, published a report on this back in June 2016....take a look at Glen Greenwald's piece while you're at it.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06...
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trum...

nealkaye, 8:46 PM EST


The GOP has the White House, the Senate and the House, the 33 state Governerships and, for the next 30 years, the US Supreme Court (once Trump picks the next 3 Justices).

Thank you Pres. Obama.

[Nov 08, 2016] Clintons Foreign Policy Will Obviously Be More Aggressive, So Why Pretend Otherwise

Nov 08, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
By Daniel Larison James Traub gamely tries to convince us (and himself) that Clinton's foreign policy won't be as aggressive and meddlesome as she says it will be, but he undermines his argument when he says this:

As a senator and later secretary of state, she rarely departed from the counsel of senior military officials. She was far more persuaded of the merits of Gen. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, which would have sent an additional 40,000 troops there, than Obama was and maybe even more than then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was. She rarely departed from Gates on any significant issue. Of course, the one time she did so was on Libya, where she advocated intervention and he did not [bold mine-DL]. On Syria, Clinton may have to choose between her own expressed commitments and a Pentagon that is far more cautious and more inclined to see mishap than are civilian interventionists. I wonder how Kagan-esque she will be in the White House. Less so, perhaps, than she was as secretary of state.

In other words, when military officers recommended a larger escalation, she agreed with them, and when Gates didn't support intervention she didn't agree. Clinton was fine with advice from the military when it meant supporting deeper involvement, but she broke with Gates when he didn't want to take sides in a foreign war. That isn't a picture of someone who consistently heeds military advice, but rather someone who always opts for the more aggressive option available at the time. It doesn't make much sense that Clinton as president would be less "Kagan-esque" than she was as a member of Obama's Cabinet. As president, she will have considerable leeway to do as she sees fit, Congress will be pathetically quiescent as usual, and most of the foreign policy establishment will be encouraging her to do more in Syria and elsewhere. Clinton will be predisposed to agree with what they urge her to do, and in the last twenty years she has never seen a military intervention that she thought was unnecessary or too risky. Why is that suddenly going to change when she has the power of the presidency? In virtually every modern case, a new president ends up behaving more hawkishly than expected based on campaign rhetoric. All of the pressures and incentives in Washington push a president towards do-somethingism, and Clinton has typically been among the least resistant to the demand to "do something" in response to crises and conflicts, so why would we think she would become more cautious once she is in office? I can understand why many of her supporters wish that to be the case, but it flies in the face of all the available evidence, including most of what we know about how Washington works.

Traub makes a number of predictions at the end of his article:

She will not make dumb mistakes. She will reassure every ally who needs reassurance. She will try to mute China's adventurism in the South China Sea without provoking a storm of nationalism. She'll probably disappoint the neocons. She won't go out on any limbs. She won't shake the policymaking consensus.

I don't know where this confidence in Clinton's good judgment comes from, but it seems misplaced. I suppose it depends on what you think smart foreign policy looks like, but there is a fair amount of evidence from Clinton's own record that she is quite capable of making dumb mistakes.

That doesn't just apply to her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her backing for intervention in Libya, but could also refer to her support for sending weapons to Ukraine, her endorsement of "no-fly" and safe zones in Syria, her preference for more sanctions on Iran while negotiations were still taking place, and her belief that the U.S. has to bomb another country to retain its "credibility." All of these are mistakes, and some are quite dumb.

It isn't at all reassuring to know that Clinton will "reassure every ally who needs reassurance," because in practice that means indulging bad behavior from reckless clients and rewarding them with more aid and weapons. Earlier in the article, Traub seems to understand that enabling the Saudis is a bad idea:

This last policy, which for Clinton will come under the heading of "alliance management," would only deepen the violence and sectarian strife rending the region. She would be better advised to tell the Saudis that the United States will reduce its support of their war effort unless they make serious efforts toward a lasting cease-fire.

That would certainly be wiser than offering uncritical backing of their intervention, but what is the evidence that Clinton thinks U.S. support for the war on Yemen needs to be curtailed? Yemen has been devastated in no small part because of Obama's willingness to "reassure" the Saudis and their allies. What other countries will be made to suffer so Clinton can keep them happy? Clinton may disappoint neocons, but then they are disappointed by anything short of preventive war. Even if Clinton's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough to satisfy them, it is likely to be far more aggressive than necessary.

[Nov 08, 2016] The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial policies, domestic or international

Notable quotes:
"... It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing. ..."
"... Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy. ..."
Nov 08, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kalen | Nov 8, 2016 3:21:04 AM | 73

It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing.

THE FACT: The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial policies, domestic or international WHATSOEVER. And that's the fact based on rock solid empirical evidences also MOA proliferates that only a mental patient can deny.

SO WHAT THE F.U.CK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT? "Voting" for this or that? NONSENSE;

Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy.

All at the end will openly pledge unwavering support for the regime and their rotten deeply corrupted parties while abandoning their gullible voters.

Supporters of any of these plastic puppets of oligarchy not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient, nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political deceit, lies and manipulation by the ruling elite in front of their wide shut eyes , turning to magic, superstition, appeasement, making up stories, poems out of their incoherent utterances filed with tautologies, innuendos and absurd, begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to save them ultimately in a form of fake, meaningless political turds passing as empty "political" platform promises while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to independence, self-determination and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle, for a role of a meddlesome spectators to their own execution.

THE FACT: The democratic electoral system worth participating does not exist in the US but none of the candidates would utter this truth as long as they can benefit from the fraud and that includes third parties. If this was a true change or revolution, that we desperately need, honest leaders would not run their campaign within the corrupted system set up by and for two oligarchic parties but they would decry and utterly reject it.

Think people, all the so-called candidates even third party candidates are just nibbling on the behemoth of abhorrent and brutal US imperial power mostly with utterances that they never intended to follow if they wanted to survive terror of the US security apparatus, while peddling the lies about small incremental changes and stealing ours and our children future by asking us to wait, be patient, and begging ruling elite for mercy and may be for some crumbs from an oligarchs' table after they are not able to gorge themselves anymore with our blood sweat and tears.

Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily lives electoral zombies such as those, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, regrettably also on this blog, will be aligning themselves with one or the other anointed by establishment winner [whoever it will be] of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion of power, illusion of feelings that something depends on me, that I can make a difference, a delusion of holding skies from falling and by that saving the world common among paranoid mental patients.

And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually disproved hope of Sisyphus, of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that dies.

THE LOUD POLITICAL BOYCOTT OF THIS FARCE, UTTER REJECTION OF THIS FACADE OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE, REJECTION OF ANY POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF THIS SORRY SPECTACLE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE TO ANY DECENT PERSON, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN WHO TAKES A MORAL STAND REJECTING ENSLAVEMENT RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW.

THE REST WILL JUST PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN CHAINS.

MAKE YOU CHOICE.

Posted by: Kalen | Nov 8, 2016 3:21:04 AM | 73

[Nov 08, 2016] Which way Utah falls

Notable quotes:
"... I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon. ..."
"... the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD. ..."
"... The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad. ..."
Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Vatch November 7, 2016 at 2:47 pm

Shouldn't Utah be considered a swing state in 2016? Some Mormons are unhappy with aspects of Trump's behavior, and wild card McMullin is a member of the LDS church.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 7, 2016 at 3:15 pm

Can't be worse than Bill's behavior. Plus Trump doesn't drink.

Vatch November 7, 2016 at 3:48 pm

Nate Silver's site gives Trump an overwhelming advantage in Utah, but I still think that surprises are possible. See this article (which admittedly also shows a significant polling advantage for Trump):

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/evan-mcmullin-utah-donald-trump-161105032535083.html

An Emerson College poll released on November 3 shows him at 28 percent to Trump's 40 percent and Clinton's 20 percent.

Jason Perry, the director of Utah's bipartisan Hinckley Institute, says there is a large percentage of voters who do not even know who McMullin is, "but they know who he is not. He's not Trump, and he's not Hillary".

With 67 percent of Utah voters viewing Trump unfavourably according to a Monmouth University poll, voting for the Republican candidate does not appear to sit well with Utah's value-minded voters.

Becky Rasmussen, 37, of Highland City, is one such voter who could not see herself voting for Trump, in part because of her Mormon faith.

While she also sees Clinton as unfit for the presidency, Trump, she says, is "completely morally bankrupt …You see framed in his office him on the cover of Playboy Magazine".

But Porter Goodman, 28, from Provo – who believes that voting for McMullin "is the only way to not throw away your vote" – says it is not his Mormon beliefs that cause him to view Trump as having a "lack of morality".

"I say he lacks morality because he lies and because he abuses other people with his words and actions," Goodman says. "Savour the magnificent irony of Trump supporters who say, 'Yeah, Trump may be a pathological liar, but set that aside and focus on the great things he says he'll do as president."

NotTimothyGeithner November 7, 2016 at 4:42 pm

I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon.

Nate doesn't do a why or how of trends and just focuses on raw numbers based on previous polls. It's why he never landed a baseball job when other Stat geeks did. If there was an usual trend in Utah, Nate would miss it.

The key issue is are Mormons "Republicans" or "conservative" when they describe themselves. If their identity is "conservative," I could see them not voting for Trump. If being a "Republican" matters, they will vote. They voted for McCain, and the fundies hated that guy.

GMoore November 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm

the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD.

The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad.

It's the great untold story of this election. IT's also the spit and glue that holds the Clinton coalition of media, government, Wall St, Dems and Goper royalty together in this fight to the death to keep a "friendly" administration in DC. This is kill or be killed time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFQkCSEUGE

[Nov 08, 2016] The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyones votes correctly? Insrtead we have anti-russian hysteria fed to us 24 x 7

Notable quotes:
"... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
"... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
"... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
"... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
"... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
"... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
"... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
"... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
"... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
"... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
economistsview.typepad.com

anne -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 01:47 PM

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/the-truth-about-the-sanders-movement/

May 23, 2016

The Truth About the Sanders Movement
By Paul Krugman

In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.

The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:

"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ...

[ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]

ilsm -> anne... , November 07, 2016 at 03:53 PM
poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press
anne -> Chris Lowery ... , November 07, 2016 at 10:28 AM
The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say.

And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....

[ Compelling argument. ]

JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:26 AM
Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful? Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
JohnH : , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning: whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
JohnH -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/us-election-projectile-vomiting-barbara-ehrenreich
JohnH -> Bloix... , November 07, 2016 at 04:59 PM
"I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live!
ilsm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 03:54 PM
the great mortification, these two.
cm -> JohnH... , November 07, 2016 at 11:11 PM
Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours).
Tom aka Rusty : , November 07, 2016 at 11:17 AM
Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , November 07, 2016 at 03:55 PM
Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message!
John M : , November 07, 2016 at 11:26 AM
The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine *really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative something votes?)
Julio -> John M ... , November 08, 2016 at 06:42 AM
That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud are tiny by comparison.
Enquiring Mind : , November 07, 2016 at 11:48 AM
Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-american-voters-on-trump-clinton/

ScottB : , November 07, 2016 at 12:08 PM
Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders.
ilsm -> ScottB... , November 07, 2016 at 03:57 PM
putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless people - the miracle of free trade! : , November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class...

Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.

[Nov 08, 2016] We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation.

Notable quotes:
"... We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation. ..."
"... Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast. ..."
"... Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else. ..."
Nov 08, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
Perimetr | Nov 8, 2016 4:34:49 AM | 77

The heartland of the US is RED, solid RED.
The neolibcons are printing up their Newsweek mags with Madam President on the cover.

They don't have a clue about how pissed off the people in the "flyover states" are.

Fuck their rigged polls and lying news.

Sure Trump is behind or neck-and-neck . . . Just like we have 5% unemployment.

As long as you don't count the 1/3 of working age people who DON"T HAVE A JOB.

The deplorables can think of 650,000 reasons why Hillary should be in PRISON, even if the FBI can't.

We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation.

Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast.

ProPeace | Nov 8, 2016 7:02:55 AM | 80
@RayB | Nov 8, 2016 12:18:53 AM | 62 "The only real issue here is either war or peace."

Yes, especially that the US has war-based, or "blood economy" (like diamonds).

Interesting tidbits:

... ... ...

rufus magister | Nov 8, 2016 7:26:46 AM | 81
fairleft at 43 --

Do not blow shit up, like the political system, without a clear idea where the pieces will land and how you will put them back together. Crisis would benefit the right, not the left, given the current correlation of class and political forces.

The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton. As the comment at 11 shows, anything less than a crushing defeat will enable the alt-right and embolden the most reactionary and nativist elements in society.

The notion that worsening conditions will automatically produce progressive revolution is a pipe-dream. Beaten-down folks struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to organize.

Vote your conscience, your hopes. Takingg the long view, I am again voting, as I have for years, for the Socialist Workers Party.

Jackrabbit | Nov 8, 2016 8:03:07 AM | 82
rufus @81:
Do not blow shit up ...
The corrupt 'Third Way' Democrats blew up U.S. democracy years ago. "Do not blow shit up" = BOHICA.
The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton.... I am again voting, as I have for years, for the Socialist Workers Party.
Shameless, unadulterated bullshit.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else.

[Nov 08, 2016] If Hillary wins it must be a glitch in putins ipad.

Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 2:58 pm

If Hillary wins it must be a glitch in putin's ipad.

RabidGandhi November 7, 2016 at 5:20 pm

He even changed all the clocks Saturday night. Is nothing sacred?

[Nov 08, 2016] The conflict with Russia is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.

Notable quotes:
"... What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis. ..."
"... So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds. ..."
"... And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." ..."
"... There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. ..."
"... has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

mauisurfer | Nov 8, 2016 12:02:23 AM | 60

Michael Hudson says

> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is a class war and we're winning it.

> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.

> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.

> Hudson: Well, after 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, it really went neoliberal. And Putin is basically a neoliberal. So there's not a clash of economic systems as there was between capitalism and communism. What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis.

So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.

And that means lending all of the balance-of-payments surplus that Russia or China or other countries look at, by lending it to the U.S. Treasury, which will use that money to militarily encircle these countries and threaten to do to any country that seeks to withdraw from the dollar system exactly what they did to Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan, or now Syria.

And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." No country's going to invade any other country. There's not going to be a military draft in any country 'cause the students; the population would rise up. Nobody's going to invade, and you can't control or occupy a country if you don't have an army. So the only thing that America can do-or any country can do militarily-is drop bombs.

And that's sort of the equivalent of, just like the European Central Bank told Greece, "We'll close down your banks and the ATM machines will be empty," America will say, "Well, we'll bomb you, make you look like Syria and Libya if you don't turn over your oil, your pipelines, your utilities to American buyers so we can charge rents; we can be the absentee landlords. We can conquer the world financially instead of militarily. We don't need an army; we can use finance. And the threat of military warfare and bombing you to achieve things." Other countries are trying to stay free of the mad bomber, and it's all about who's going to control the world's natural resources: water, real estate, utilities-not a question of economic systems so much anymore.

> Well, President Obama, even though he's a tool of Wall Street, at least he says, "It's not worth blowing up the world to fight in the near east." Hillary says, "It is worth pushing the world back to the Stone Age if they don't let us and me, Hillary, tell the world how to behave." That's a danger of the world and that's why the Europeans should be terrified of a Hillary presidency and terrified of the direction that America is doing, saying, "We want to control the world." It's not control the world through a different economic philosophy. It's to control the world through ownership of their land, natural resources and essentially, governments and monetary systems. That's really what it's all about. And the popular press is not doing a good job of explaining that context, but I can assure you, that's what they're talking about in Russia, China and South America.

> There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. That's what the Austrian school was all about in the 1920s, waging war and assassination against the labor leaders and the socialists in Vienna, and that's what the free marketers in Chile were all about in the mass assassinations of labor leaders, university professors, intellectuals, and that's exactly the situation in America today without the machine guns, because the population doesn't really feel that it has any alternative, but has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/michael_hudson_on_why_trump_is_the_lesser_evil_20161107

[Nov 08, 2016] Oh, What a Lovely War! Delusional foreign policy could bring disaster

Notable quotes:
"... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
"... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
"... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
"... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
"... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
"... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
"... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
"... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
"... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
"... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
Nov 08, 2016 | www.unz.com

The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.

Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."

In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.

With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First, Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution. She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign policy consensus.

Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power.

She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.

Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming. It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."

Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an odd position vis-ŕ-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government, which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."

Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.

One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies of their respective governments.

Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.

After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.

Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.

Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.

Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from clear.

Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.

Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S.

Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.

In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.

So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that "the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.

[Nov 08, 2016] What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

www.moonofalabama.org

mauisurfer | Nov 8, 2016 12:02:23 AM | 60

Michael Hudson says

> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?

> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is a class war and we're winning it.

> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.

> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.

[Nov 08, 2016] What Hath Trump Wrought

Notable quotes:
"... Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee. ..."
"... How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected? ..."
"... Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs. ..."
"... The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility. ..."
"... Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank. ..."
"... But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak. ..."
"... Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power. ..."
"... Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites... ..."
"... While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim. ..."
www.unz.com
Herewith, a dissent. Whatever happens Tuesday, Trump has made history and has forever changed American politics.

Though a novice in politics, he captured the Party of Lincoln with the largest turnout of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation's ruling class from which it may not soon recover.

Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.

Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars into which they plunged the country.

Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy. But he recognized them, tapped into them, and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.

Whatever happens Tuesday, there is no going back now.

How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected?

How can the GOP establishment credibly claim to speak for a party that spent the last year cheering a candidate who repudiated the last two Republican presidents and the last two Republican nominees?

Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs.

The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility.

Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank.

But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak.

Consider the litany of horrors it has charged Trump with.

He said John McCain was no hero, that some Mexican illegals are "rapists." He mocked a handicapped reporter. He called some women "pigs." He wants a temporary ban to Muslim immigration. He fought with a Gold Star mother and father. He once engaged in "fat-shaming" a Miss Universe, calling her "Miss Piggy," and telling her to stay out of Burger King. He allegedly made crude advances on a dozen women and starred in the "Access Hollywood" tape with Billy Bush.

While such "gaffes" are normally fatal for candidates, Trump's followers stood by him through them all.

Why? asks an alarmed establishment. Why, in spite of all this, did Trump's support endure? Why did the American people not react as they once would have? Why do these accusations not have the bite they once did?

Answer. We are another country now, an us-or-them country.

Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power.

Trump's followers see an American Spring as crucial, and they are not going to let past boorish behavior cause them to abandon the last best chance to preserve the country they grew up in.

These are the Middle American Radicals, the MARs of whom my late friend Sam Francis wrote.

They recoil from the future the elites have mapped out for them and, realizing the stakes, will overlook the faults and failings of a candidate who holds out the real promise of avoiding that future.

They believe Trump alone will secure the borders and rid us of a trade regime that has led to the loss of 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. They believe Trump is the best hope for keeping us out of the wars the Beltway think tanks are already planning for the sons of the "deplorables" to fight.

Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites...

... ... ...

While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim.

But, would the followers of Donald Trump, whom Hillary Clinton has called "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots," to the cheers of her media retainers, unite behind her should she win?

No. Win or lose, as Sen. Edward Kennedy said at the Democratic Convention of 1980, "The work goes on, the cause endures."

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

[Nov 08, 2016] Trump 'I Do Think a Lot of the Polls Are Purposefully Wrong' - Breitbart

Nov 08, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

Tuesday on Fox News Channel, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump offered his thoughts on how the campaign proceeded as Election Day has finally come.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

One of his criticisms was how the polls had been handled, which he called in some cases "phony" and "purposefully wrong."

Partial transcript as follows:

DOOCY: A couple of weeks ago you know it was revealed that part of Hillary Clinton's game plan was to try, you know, to talk up the polls and make it seem like the show's over, no way you can win. Then of course the polls for the most part right now are too close to call. Ultimately though do you think the polls that we've seen over the last week or two, going back, are wrong because the pollsters are not factoring in how many Democrats are going to be voting for you?

You know all this early voting stuff, they say well this many Democrats requested ballots, this many Republicans. And also just the gigantic number of Republicans who have turned out to see you, the enthusiasm level. Do you think those things the pollsters are getting wrong?

TRUMP: I do think a lot of the polls are purposefully wrong. I think I can almost tell you by the people that do it. The media is very dishonest, extremely dishonest. And I think a lot of the polls are phony. I don't even think they interview people.

DOOCY: Right.

TRUMP: I think they just put out phony numbers. I do think this, after the debates, I think my numbers really started to go up well. And then I did a series over the last two weeks, only of you know, really important speeches I think. 20,000, 25,000 people, 31,000 people were showing up to these speeches.

You saw yesterday, you saw the kind of crowds we're getting. I said something's happening here. Something incredible is happening here. And tell you the enthusiasm and the love in those rooms, in those arenas, they're really arenas, I mean in New Hampshire last night it was a tremendous arena, beautiful arena. And same thing, we had a big convention center last night in Michigan. But they're packed. I mean we have thousands of people.

DOOCY: Right.

TRUMP: We had last night in Michigan we had 10,000 people outside that couldn't get in.

DOOCY: Wow.

EARHARDT: Wow.

TRUMP: 10,000 people. It's been amazing. So I said something's happening. Something's really going on.

[Nov 08, 2016] Hillary's World How Clinton's Foreign Policy Has Destabilized Nearly Every Corner of the Globe - Breitbart

Nov 08, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton – as senator, secretary of state, and active partner in the Clinton Foundation – has had the privilege of influencing major players in governments across the globe.

The result of her efforts has largely been the unfettered consolidation of autocratic power, instability (when not total collapse) in vulnerable states, and a global jihadist movement with its own Caliphate infiltrating some of the world's most strategic locations.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The above map shows the nations of the world Clinton's policies have destabilized and, below, an explanation of why each is labeled the way it is. This is meant to be a comprehensive list, though by no means complete: there are few nations in which an American secretary of state has no influence whatsoever.

Emboldened Autocrats

China

As secretary of state, Clinton presided over a policy known as the " pivot to Asia ," meant to increase American visibility in the continent and, in particular, bring China and the United States closer together. Clinton publicly supported the " one-China policy " – China's way of imposing itself on the Republic of China (Taiwan), Tibet, Hong Kong, and the western Xinjiang region – and encouraged China to buy up U.S. debt .

Following her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton expressed support for incoming president Xi Jinping in private. In a 2013 private speech now public, thanks to the organization WikiLeaks, Clinton said it was "good news" that Xi was "doing much more to try to assert his authority" than his predecessor, Hu Jintao.

Since then, Xi has declared himself the " core " leader, comparable to Mao Zedong ; colonized the maritime territory of six nations in the South China Sea; used state violence to crack down on the nation's skyrocketing Christian population; and engaged in multiple Communist Party purges, citing unspecified " corruption ."

Cuba

Hillary Clinton has loudly supported President Obama's policy to "normalize" relations with Cuba, and her associates maintain close ties to the Washington, D.C., community that benefits from relations with the Castro regime. President Obama's "normalization" has triggered a boom in violent arbitrary arrests of political dissidents and a new wave of refugees seeking to leave the communist dictatorship before the United States changes its mind about treating them as political refugees.

Iran

Hillary Clinton's work to embolden the Iranian Islamic dictatorship began early in her term as secretary of state. During Clinton's tenure, the Obama administration all but ignored the Iranian Green Revolution, a series of protests against then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Clinton's State Department rejected requests for funding from groups doing the work on the grounds of documenting Khamenei's rampant human rights abuses against unarmed protesters.

The Obama administration's crowning achievement in securing the Shiite Caliphate's rule came years later, of course, in the form of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal. While the parties signed the deal long after her departure from State, Clinton was responsible for "naming the negotiators for the nuclear talks and approving two major U.S. concessions to Iran in 2011 – guaranteeing Iran the right to enrich uranium and agreeing to close the IAEA's investigation of Iran's past nuclear weapons work," according to Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy .

Malaysia

Under Prime Minister Najib Razak, Malaysia has become a hotbed of corruption and, increasingly, radical Islamic sentiment . The Obama administration has, nonetheless, cozied up to Kuala Lumpur, including improving its human rights ratings to make it an eligible partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Among the allies Clinton world feared would challenge Clinton, the presidential candidate, on Malaysia were labor leader Richard Trumka and George Soros.

As Secretary of State, Clinton was the first in her office in more than a decade to visit Malaysia as part of President Obama's "Asia pivot" strategy.

North Korea

Secretary of State Clinton approached North Korea with a policy known as " strategic patience ," which one expert described as "sitting back and watching while North Korea continued to build up its nuclear weapons program." North Korea has detonated two nuclear weapons since Clinton has been out of office, in part emboldened by "strategic patience" and in part, many argued after the fourth of five tests, emboldened by the Iranian nuclear deal .

Russia

Clinton has attempted to convince the American people that her arch-rival in the presidential election is Russian President Vladimir Putin, but long before it was politically expedient for her to do so, Clinton was the face of President Obama's "Russian reset" – the one that preceded the collapse of Ukraine – and bragged privately to big-money donors of her close ties to Putin. The strongman trusted her so much, she once boasted, that he invited her to his " inner sanctum ."

Turkey

In her memoir, Hard Choices , Clinton reserved praise from President (then-Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan that sounded not unlike her optimistic profiling of Xi Jinping. Erdogan, she said , was "an ambitious, forceful, devout and effective politician." Of his government, she said Erdogan was correct to seek "zero problems with neighbors." WikiLeaks-released emails have since revealed that Erdogan sought to buy influence through campaign donations to the Clintons.

During his tenure as president, Erdogan has advanced the cause of Islamism in Turkey to unprecedented levels since the rule of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, going so far as to allow Islamic prayers in the Hagia Sophia, an iconic Christian landmark. He has also conducted mass arrests of political enemies and shut down numerous media outlets who dare challenge his government . Last Friday, Erdogan's government arrested the leaders of the People's Democratic Party (HDP) – a pro-Kurdish, pro-Christian center-left party – in a midnight raid on dubious "terrorism" charges.

Venezuela

Clinton served as secretary of state during the tail end of the tenure of socialist dictator Hugo Chávez, who died shortly after she departed. Chávez presided over a bleak time in Venezuelan history: nationalizing private industries, cozying up to enabling autocrats in Cuba, Iran, and China, and using violence to suppress anti-socialist opposition.

In 2009, Clinton defended negotiating with Chávez and fostering diplomacy with him, telling a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the U.S. should dismiss Chávez's ties to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and communist China because "we've isolated him, so he's gone elsewhere. I mean, he's a very sociable guy."

Venezuela's economy is now in free fall as dozens of prisoners of conscience languish in prison under Chávez's hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro's management of his own government has been so abysmal that, with Clinton gone, President Obama has declared Venezuela a national security threat .

Emboldened Corruption

Algeria

The government of Algeria is involved in one of the most egregious corruption schemes of the Clinton Foundation: offering the Clintons a $500,000 check. "The donation reportedly coincided with an intense effort by Algeria to lobby Mrs Clinton's State Department over US criticism of its human rights record," The Telegraph notes .

Brazil

Earlier this year, Brazil impeached and ousted its socialist President Dilma Rousseff for a variety of fiscal improprieties, including the misrepresentation of government funds to lure investors. Triggering protests that numbered in the millions, however, was Rousseff's deep involvement in something known as "Operation Car Wash," a sprawling corruption scheme in which dozens of government officials took millions in kickbacks from projects commissioned by the state-run oil company Petrobras.

As secretary of state, Clinton had longtime ties to Rousseff and praised "her commitment to openness, transparency," stating that "her fight against corruption is setting a global standard" in 2012.

Haiti

The Clinton Foundation's exploitation of Haiti's poverty and the damage caused by a 2010 earthquake has left many of those nation's leaders disgusted enough to speak up about the corruption. An operation to aid earthquake victims run by the Clintons was also found to have " played a role " in an unprecedented cholera outbreak in that country.

Kazakhstan

Among the more alarming deals Clinton cut at the State Department was the nuclear deal that handed one-fifth of America's uranium production capacity to Russia. While Russia usurped control of the Uranium One corporation, the Clinton Foundations coffers filled with Russian money.

In addition to Uranium One control, the New York Times reports that Russia gained control of "mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world."

Morocco

A more recent WikiLeaks reveal shows that the Clinton Foundation received a $12 million donation from the King of Morocco in exchange for Hillary Clinton's presence at a Foundation summit. At the last minute, she did not attend .

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has enjoyed longstanding ties to the Clinton family and donated at least $50 million to the Clinton Foundation. These ties persisted even as Clinton privately admitted she had evidence that Saudi Arabia provided "clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

United States

While the Clinton Foundation often served as a laundry service for foreign donations , Clinton fostered questionable ties with plenty of domestic entities, as well. Clinton has raked in millions in donations from big business in America, donors to which she privately promised " open borders ." Clinton's ties to Department of Justice officials in the wake of an investigation into her use of an illicit private server for state business has also raised many questions regarding cronyism and corruption within our own country.

Jihadist Boom

Afghanistan

President Obama famously declared that the war in Afghanistan was over for American soldiers in 2014. The policies that led to that point only exacerbated the damage a vacuum of American power in the nation wrought following the announcement.

Under Clinton, the State Department largely ignored a sprawling corruption problem that left Afghanistan with few resources to combat the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Clinton policies elsewhere in the world also led to the development of an Islamic State presence in the nation.

Currently, U.S. officials warn that the Taliban is stronger than it has been since September 11, 2001.

Indonesia

One of Clinton's first stops as secretary of state was Indonesia, where she proclaimed, "If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women's rights can co-exist, go to Indonesia." At the time (2009), her visit was met with chants of "Allahu akbar" and an inauspicious shoe-throwing protest against her.

Since then, Clinton's foreign policy greatly contributed to the creation of the Islamic State, a jihadist group actively courting Indonesian recruits . "Between 300 and 700 Indonesians are believed to have joined the group in Syria and Iraq over the past two years," the BBC reported in July, adding that 30 Indonesian groups had pledged allegiance to Islamic State "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Iraq

Unlike Syria, the collapse of which followed violent acts of oppression by a ruthless tyrant, Iraq's collapse is more closely tied to American foreign policy due to the nation's longtime occupation there. An American presence on the ground in Iraq did more to subdue jihadist elements there than any action to routinely fleeing Iraqi military and its corrupt leadership took.

While Clinton was in office, President Obama withdrew most of America's troops from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum rapidly filled by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and Iran-backed Shiite militias. Military experts have agreed that a prolonged American presence in the country would have contributed to stability and withdrawing left the nation vulnerable to Islamist colonization.

Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon

The nations surrounding Lake Chad continue to struggle with the rise of Boko Haram, a jihadist group founded in 2002 but active throughout the 2010s in northeast Borno state, Nigeria. Boko Haram is currently the deadliest wing of the Islamic State and responsible for killing an estimated 15,000 and displacing millions. The group rose to international prominence following the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls from a secondary school in the Borno region in 2014. Most of these girls remain in captivity, "married" off to Boko Haram jihadists for use as sex slaves.

As secretary of state, Clinton refused to designate Boko Haram, at the time affiliated with al-Qaeda, a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The move severely hindered the Nigerian government's ability to target and neutralize the group, as they could not seek U.S. aid for the mission.

Somalia, Kenya

Clinton traveled to Somalia personally in 2009 t0 offer support against al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. Following that visit, al-Shabaab made its ties to al-Qaeda public and went on two high-profile rampages against civilians in Kenya: the Westgate Mall massacre in 2013 and the Garissa University attack of 2015. It has since then become a popular enough jihadist group to have found itself the object of courtship of both its al-Qaeda overlords and the Islamic State.

Al-Shabaab has also expanded into Libya now that Libya is a failed state.

The United States did little in those in-between years to subdue al-Shabaab, including a " Yemen-like " drone policy to target leadership and an embarrassing failed raid on an al-Shabaab camp in 2013. Clinton herself merely implored the terrorists to allow humanitarian aid.

Collapse of State

Libya

Clinton's role in the death of Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, in the September 11, 2012, siege of Benghazi is now well-known. She had a major role in pushing for the decision to support Libya's uprising against dictator Muammar Gadhafi, as well, however – a move President Obama followed up with little strategy to ensure that a stable, secular government would replace Gadhafi. The collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship has left Libya a failed state, at first governed by two rival parties , but now partially governed by the Islamic State , al-Qaeda , and a variety of Islamist tribal militias.

Clinton has called the collapse of Libya " smart power at its best " and claimed there were " very few civilian casualties " in the fall of Gadhafi.

Syria

The Syrian Civil War began in 2011, during Clinton's stewardship of the State Department. The Secretary reportedly pushed President Obama to arm Sunni Arab Syrian rebels, armed militias that included a high number of jihadist elements, many of whom would move on to fight for the Islamic State. The President reportedly did not heed Clinton's advice , though he failed to do much of anything else, either.

In 2011, however, Clinton referred to dictator Bashar al-Assad as " a reformer " by reputation, whose nascent rule was cause for optimism, casting some doubt on how adamantly she pushed President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels.

Today, Syria remains a land mass governed piecemeal by the Islamic State, Kurdish militias, al-Qaeda linked armed Sunni groups, and the Iranian-Russian-Assad alliance. Assad claimed in an interview earlier this month that Syria is now "much better off" than before the civil war.

Sudan/South Sudan

The creation of South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, was a direct product of Clinton's foreign policy. Years of civil war in Sudan between the northern Muslim population and the Christian south gave way to secession and a war between two nations, not one. By the time Clinton visited in 2012, the Washington Post referred to the refugee crisis there as one of the worst in the world (soon to be eclipsed by the Syrian crisis).

The State Department persisted in aiding the South Sudanese government, even continuing to provide funding after evidence surfaced that the government employed child soldiers . Subsequent reports unveiled that Clinton-related firms received money from the South Sudanese government, as well.

Clinton's State Department support appears to have done little to stabilize South Sudan. Report of mass rape at UN camps are common, and the country is now facing a famine .

Ukraine/Georgia

The Obama administration's tepid responses to Russian colonization of former Soviet states have left Ukraine without its Crimea region and its eastern provinces in collapse. In Georgia, the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia , invaded in 2008, remain under pseudo-Russian control.

Hillary Clinton presided over a "Russian reset" policy meant to dissuade Vladimir Putin from pillaging his neighbors. Clinton even gave her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov a literal "reset button" as a gift, leaving him baffled . The reset succeeded in keeping Russia from obstructing the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal and the invasion of Libya , but did little to convince Putin to change his foreign policy.

Subsequent revelations showed the Clintons taking money from both sides of the Ukraine conflict and being careful of making too tough a stand against Putin's aggression.

Yemen

As secretary of state, Clinton made the first visit as America's top diplomat to Yemen since 1990. There, she told Ali Abdullah Saleh that she would support a program to return al-Qaeda terrorists imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to Yemen, while also acknowledging that Yemen was a hotbed of al-Qaeda activity. Saleh is now an ally of the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, which have launched a civil war against current President Abd Rabbo Mansur Hadi. Al-Qaeda is possibly the most stable entity in a nation where 80 percent of civilians live off of humanitarian aid, quadrupling its presence in the nation in a year . Yemen is a failed state torn apart by an emboldened Iran and Saudi Arabia, both major beneficiaries of the Clinton State Department's policies.

The Migrant Crisis

Austria, Belgium, the Balkan nations, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden, the UK…

The Obama administration's Syria and Libya policies (See above.), executed while Clinton was secretary of state, have triggered a flood of nearly five million displaced Syrians and more than one million Libyans seeking refuge in Europe and the Middle East. Refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa, and other volatile regions have added to the masses seeking a new home, rejected in countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia who have criticized the West for being unwelcoming.

[Nov 07, 2016] No, Hillary Clinton is not less Evil than Trump One has Funny Hair, the Other Wears Trouser-suits Global Research - Centre

Nov 07, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca
After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.

Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.

Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:

I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has taken over our system.

Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument. Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein – who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate, triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.

There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.

America's pseudo-democracy

So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine those "policy differences" with Trump.

On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted, "blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways. Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy, but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation of political violence and intimidation.

On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again, the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics – not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience. The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.

Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally, as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.

In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be: vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics (assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices. (Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate change.)

So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner in a lesser-evil presidential contest.

Mounting disillusion

But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for voting for Clinton.

Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.

Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.

Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.

The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination; they are rooted in the realities of US politics.

Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.

Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive, remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk are not to triumph eventually.

The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders – in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to rule the world.

It is time to say no – loudly – to Clinton, whether she is the slightly lesser-evil candidate or not. The original source of this article is Jonathan Cook Blog Copyright © Jonathan Cook , Jonathan Cook Blog , 2016

[Nov 07, 2016] 200PM Water Cooler 11-7-2016 naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets. ..."
"... It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is not faith in free markets. Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Neoliberalism is a specific form of statecraft that uses financial markets as a veil to disguise governing policies. ..."
"... The only consolation is that clearly a Dem or Repub president doesn't really matter, given the corporatocracy (or oligarchy, take your pick). So the bonus this year is that Drump destroyed the Bush dynasty and most of the RNC. And Clinton has burnt all her bridges and allies and the liberal MSM in getting to her (assumed) victory. ..."
"... remember whatever happens the world will go on and one US president or another will screw the serfs domestically and bomb Middle Eastern countries. ..."
"... Unless Hillary and the gung-ho neocons decide that we really should see just how far Putin can be pushed. ..."
"... I don't care which one wins, all I know is that the rest of us in the 90% will be screwed either way. But I will settle down in the evening, have a cuppa, and hope that TV will provide me with some schadenfreude. ..."
"... We cannot betray the ideal of a popular democracy by pretending this contrived political theater is free or fair or democratic. We cannot play their game. We cannot play by their rules. Our job is not to accommodate the corporate state…. ..."
"... "I do not, in the end, fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ..."
"... "It is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves." ..."
"... I will never again vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. Did it once for Obama (against Sarah Palin). Never again. It just encourages more crapification. ..."
"... I've read exactly one compelling argument for voting Hillary, by Jim Kunstler, who thinks it best if the crew responsible for the mess is still holding the bag when things really go south. ..."
Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The Trail

Best pro-Trump piece I've seen: "The GOP's 'Ungrateful Bastard' Caucus" [ American Greatness ].

Best pro-Clinton piece remains: "Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It's Important" [ Common Dreams ].

The best reasons I can think of to vote for each candidate (as opposed to against the other candidates). In no particular order:

These reasons are, of course, entirely incommensurate.

"The American Conservative Presidential Symposium" [ The American Conservative ]. Michael Tracey: "Trump might be better than Hillary on foreign policy (my top issue), but he's far too volatile to conclude that with any certainty, and he may well end up being catastrophically worse. The Clintons' outrageous stoking of a war fervor over Russia is quite simply depraved and should disqualify them from reentering the White House…. Democrats deserve punishment for nominating a candidate with such severe legal problems, stifling a genuine populist insurgent in the most craven possible fashion (I supported Bernie Sanders but find his recent hectoring pro-Clinton conduct highly off-putting). Their shambolic, 'rigged' primary process can't be countenanced, nor can the 2016 electoral debacle as a whole, so I'll do my small part in rejecting this horror show by declining to vote."

Realignment

"America's Ruling Elite Has Failed and Deserves to Be Fired" [ Of Two Minds ]. "The last failed remnants of the state-cartel hierarchies left over from World War II must implode before we can move forward. Healthcare, defense, pharmaceuticals, higher education, the mainstream media and the systems of governance must all decay to the point that no one can be protected from the destructive consequences of their failure, and no paychecks can be issued by these failed systems." Tellingly, the author omits the FIRE sector. So I would say their definition of elite is odd.

"[E]ducation levels are a more significant factor this year. Obama won a majority of those with a high school diploma (or less) in 2012, while Romney won college-educated voters. This year the numbers are reversed. Among white voters with only a high school education, Trump leads by over 25 points. Among whites with a college degree, Clinton leads by about 10 percent. This is the first time since serious polling began in 1952 that this has happened [ RealClearPoltiics ]. And when I ask myself who sent the United States heading toward Third World status, it's not those without college degrees. In fact, it's Clinton's base.

"The Last Gasp of the American Dream" [ The Archdruid Report ].

[M]illions of Americans trudge through a bleak round of layoffs, wage cuts, part-time jobs at minimal pay, and system-wide dysfunction. The crisis hasn't hit yet, but those members of the political class who think that the people who used to be rock-solid American patriots will turn out en masse to keep today's apparatchiks secure in their comfortable lifestyles have, as the saying goes, another think coming. Nor is it irrelevant that most of the enlisted personnel in the armed forces, who are the US government's ultimate bulwark against popular unrest, come from the very classes that have lost faith most drastically in the American system. The one significant difference between the Soviet case and the American one at this stage of the game is that Soviet citizens had no choice but to accept the leaders the Communist Party of the USSR foisted off on them, from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko to Gorbachev, until the system collapsed of its own weight…

If George W. Bush was our Leonid Brezhnev, as I'd suggest, and Barack Obama is our Yuri Andropov, Hillary Clinton is running for the position of Konstantin Chernenko; her running mate Tim Kaine, in turn, is waiting in the wings as a suitably idealistic and clueless Mikhail Gorbachev, under whom the whole shebang can promptly go to bits. While I don't seriously expect the trajectory of the United States to parallel that of the Soviet Union anything like as precisely as this satiric metaphor would suggest, the basic pattern of cascading dysfunction ending in political collapse is quite a common thing in history, and a galaxy of parallels suggests that the same thing could very easily happen here within the next decade or so. The serene conviction among the political class and their affluent hangers-on that nothing of the sort could possibly take place is just another factor making it more likely.

"Why Trump Is Different-and Must Be Repelled" [Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker ].

For the past months, and into this final week, as for much of the past year, many New Yorkers have been in a position that recalls parents with a colicky baby: you put the baby down at last, it seems safely asleep, grateful and unbelievably exhausted you return to bed-only to hear the small tell-tale cough or sob that guarantees another crying jag is on the way. The parents in this case, to fill in the metaphorical blanks, are liberal-minded folk; the baby's cries are any indicators that Donald Trump may not be out of the race for President-as he seemed to be even as recently as last week-and may actually have a real chance at being elected. Disbelief crowds exhaustion: this can't be happening. If the colicky baby is a metaphor too sweet for so infantile a figure as the orange menace, then let us think instead, perhaps, of the killer in a teen horror movie of the vintage kind: every time Freddy seemed dispatched and buried, there he was leaping up again, as the teens caught their breath and returned, too soon, to their teendom.

Of course, Gopnik - who should really stick to writing sweetly atmospheric pieces about Paris - is both passive-aggressive and infuriatingly smug. To "fill in the metaphorical blanks," but for realz, both the "colicky baby" and the teen horror movie villain are infantilized and displaced versions of a working class Other: The Trump voter that Eurostar-rider Gopnik hates and fears, because he's afraid they're going to come and kill him and take his stuff. In short, he has the guilty conscience of a classic liberal.

Democrat Email Hairball

"Dow surges 300 points as FBI clears Clinton on eve of election" [ USA Today ]. Hmm. Insiders go to HappyVille!

Our Famously Free Press

"Vox Scams Readers Into Thinking Prescient World Series Tweet Was A Scam [Update]" [ DeadSpin ].

Guillotine Watch

"Too Smug to Jail" [Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone ]. "As we reach the close of an election season marked by anger toward the unaccountable rich, The Economist has chimed in with a defense of the beleaguered white-collar criminal."

[T]his is the crucial passage:

"Most corporate crime is the result of collective action rather than individual wrongdoing-long chains of command that send (often half-understood) instructions, or corporate cultures that encourage individuals to take risky actions. The authorities have rightly adjusted to this reality by increasingly prosecuting companies rather than going after individual miscreants."

Yikes! This extraordinary argument is cousin to the Lieutenant Calley defense , i.e., that soldiers bear no responsibility for crimes they were ordered to execute. The Economist here would have you believe that there's no such thing as an individual crime in a corporate context.

Class Warfare

On neoliberalism [Matt Stoller, Facebook , via Atrios ].

Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets.

It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies.

Financial markets flourish, real markets morph into mass distribution middlemen like Walmart or Amazon.

Neoliberalism is not faith in free markets. Neoliberalism is not free market capitalism. Neoliberalism is a specific form of statecraft that uses financial markets as a veil to disguise governing policies.

What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed. Stoller is paraphrasing his review of Greta Krippner's Capitalizing on Crisis , which sounds well worth a read.

"Uncovering Credit Disparities among Low- and Moderate-Income Areas" [ Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis ]. "Eggleston found that LMI [lower abd middle-income] neighborhoods with relatively better credit tend to be in metros with a larger percentage of white residents, and they are typically found in the East, West and parts of the upper Midwest. They also tend to be in metros that have lower poverty rates."

HopeLB November 7, 2016 at 4:15 pm

Look at reddit r/politics. Did Hillary/Brock stop paying to downvote all anti-Hill posts/comments? Reaction to the Daily Beast telling readers "YOU MUST VOTE HILLARY" was at 11,000. Maybe, Hillary and Co are trying to get a handle on real voter sentiment?
Or they don't care now that it is in the bag.

Pavel November 7, 2016 at 3:03 pm

LOL I was going to post (well, I guess I am doing so) that the finger I am counting down on is my middle finger, which I shall extend to the DNC, the RNC, the MSM, and the rest of the corrupt US oligarchy that brought us here. Especially the MSM - and note of course that it was Bill Clinton who deregulated the media so it went from one hundred or so to the SIX corporate behemoths that control 90%+ of the news that the average American consumes.

FU!

The only consolation is that clearly a Dem or Repub president doesn't really matter, given the corporatocracy (or oligarchy, take your pick). So the bonus this year is that Drump destroyed the Bush dynasty and most of the RNC. And Clinton has burnt all her bridges and allies and the liberal MSM in getting to her (assumed) victory.

My humble advice for tomorrow: have a case of beer, wine, whiskey, or green tea at hand, relax, play some good music, ignore the MSM, and remember whatever happens the world will go on and one US president or another will screw the serfs domestically and bomb Middle Eastern countries.

Norm November 7, 2016 at 3:31 pm

Unless Hillary and the gung-ho neocons decide that we really should see just how far Putin can be pushed.

OIFVet November 7, 2016 at 5:05 pm

Oh yeah, I will extend my own middle finger right back at them tomorrow. Voting for Stein will at least give me the inner peace and comfort of knowing that I did not vote for the "lesser evil" represented by Madame Secretary. I don't care which one wins, all I know is that the rest of us in the 90% will be screwed either way. But I will settle down in the evening, have a cuppa, and hope that TV will provide me with some schadenfreude.

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 2:58 pm

must be a glitch in putin's ipad.

RabidGandhi November 7, 2016 at 5:20 pm

He even changed all the clocks Saturday night. Is nothing sacred?

Kim Kaufman November 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm

A repost from a while ago that I saved and finally read over the weekend: Everything Is Broken https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1#.voxbs0841

Ulysses November 7, 2016 at 2:59 pm

Thanks indeed!

I apologize if these concluding thoughts on an exhausting electoral season, by Chris Hedges, have already been posted:

"We cannot betray the ideal of a popular democracy by pretending this contrived political theater is free or fair or democratic. We cannot play their game. We cannot play by their rules. Our job is not to accommodate the corporate state….

The state seeks to control us through fear, propaganda, wholesale surveillance and violence. [This] is the only form of social control it has left. The lie of neoliberalism has been exposed. Its credibility has imploded. The moment we cease being afraid, the moment we use our collective strength as I saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 to make the rulers afraid of us, is the moment of the system's downfall.

Go into the voting booth on Tuesday. Do not be afraid. Vote with your conscience."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/defying_the_politics_of_fear_20161106

phred November 7, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Thank you for that link. I particularly liked the last sentences of Hedges' piece:

"I do not, in the end, fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists."

Yep.

BecauseTradition November 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

Sounds too much like the Demos fighting for the people but never winning. Also a bit narcissistic. And is Hedges a foe of, say, the government insurance of privately created deposits – a fascist invention if ever there was?

cocomaan November 7, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Thanks for Correcting the Record! Glad that we can lump anyone who questions your narrative into four neat categories. There's no possible way someone could have an original thought.

Knifecatcher November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Lifted verbatim from Deadspin. You'd think CTR could write their own propaganda rather than plagiarizing from a crappy sportswriter.

Carolinian November 7, 2016 at 2:48 pm

Gopnik/infuriatingly smug….lotta that going around. You hate what you fear?

Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 5:16 pm

You only need to buy a plane etc. to hand out as favors, buy 4 or 5 dozen media personalities at mainstream outlets (a network is a must), get your sycophants in elections offices all over the country to purge your rival's voters and raise a billion dollars. Easy peasy.

Code Name D November 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Your assuming we don't get about a dozen Florida Hanging-chad scandals. If Trump wins the wrong states – this will land in court, and all end in tears.

nippersdad November 7, 2016 at 2:56 pm

That Reed column, "Vote for the lying neoliberal warmonger; it's important, has always struck me badly. His point that those who voted for a Democrat for President since '92 have done as badly or worse than they would in voting for Clinton is just false. No one in my memory has so slavishly supported finance capital and foreign wars. No one has made going to war with China, Russia or Iran a central plank in their candidacy.

I, personally, can't get over that. Republicans will do what they will do, it is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves.

Ulysses November 7, 2016 at 3:04 pm

"It is not my job to support someone who makes for a better Republican than they can come up with themselves."

Very well said!!

nycTerrierist November 7, 2016 at 5:28 pm

+1

I will never again vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. Did it once for Obama (against Sarah Palin). Never again. It just encourages more crapification.

Escher November 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

I've read exactly one compelling argument for voting Hillary, by Jim Kunstler, who thinks it best if the crew responsible for the mess is still holding the bag when things really go south.

I believe it was linked here when published.

aab November 7, 2016 at 7:53 pm

I'd be more inclined to value that possibility if it wasn't clear that the Executive Branch can now launch wars of choice at will. I have a draft age daughter.

Foppe November 7, 2016 at 3:14 pm

It's not a reference to Doing your Bit turning in family/friends/neighbors/coworkers who you "know" to be abusing the system, and thus Causing the Problem??

Pat November 7, 2016 at 3:19 pm

First violence is not the answer. Still that does make one want to find a way to march the people who came up with that along with the top management of Cigna to the stocks for some quality communing time with their customers. That there should also be a huge pile of rotten produce near the stocks would be merely coincidence.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 7, 2016 at 4:27 pm

LOL and tomorrow a majority of Americans will vote back in the crowd that brought this down upon them. Wait til you see what they are gearing up to do to SocSec.

Maybe it's a deep-seated Calvinist/Protestant self-loathing? Catholic self-flaggelation? Stockholm Syndrome?

Joe Bageant wrote about the curious phenomenon of the Republican base voting year in and year out for candidates who acted in direct opposition to their own economic interests…maybe that's both "sides" of politics now?

jrs November 7, 2016 at 3:40 pm

I wish I had a benefit package :( Even a crappy one! They are throwing us on to some kind of exchange program this year. Things go from bad to worse …

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 3:48 pm

An off-the-wall question - is your pseudonym related to Henrich Boll's story "Der Mann mit den Messern"?

Knifecatcher November 7, 2016 at 3:58 pm

Ha! Nope. Bought a house in 2009 and thought it was appropriate, and have been using it on finance / political forums ever since. Worked out OK for us, though.

Oregoncharles November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

that was good timing. We bought a duplex then, have done very well on it. A lot of work, though.

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm

So you don't like to throw a knife over your head and catch it with a board over your head at the last minute?

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 3:07 pm

not only branding, but leeching as well.

frosty zoom November 7, 2016 at 3:08 pm

in response to "Knifecatcher".

Oregoncharles November 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm

" But lots of other states use electronic machines in some capacity" [Wired]. "

Much depends on exactly how. For an example, Oregon uses paper ballots marked by the voter, but, at least in my county, electronic counters. But the paper ballots are audited and stored for years, so it's easy to check up. Everything happens at the courthouse, so there's no transmission from precincts, and transmission to the SOS is probably in person by phone, followed up by email.

I'm confident in this system, not least because Oregon is a "clean" state. One county official has been caught cheating by filling in unvoted lines for Republicans, but went to jail. I can think of other ways for insiders to cheat, but it would be dangerous and pretty easy to catch.

I'm not concerned about the electronic counters as long as they aren't connected to the internet – no reason for them to be – and the results are properly audited, the biggest if. I wonder a bit about very small rural counties, where everybody knows everybody else's business and there isn't much money for safeguards.

In any case, from a national point of view Oregon's results are not in doubt. Now I have to do some campaign work for our Ranked Choice Voting initiative, and I look forward to finding out how it did in Maine.

John k November 7, 2016 at 3:45 pm

Trump had big mo, maybe until yesterday…
Today's Ibd puts T ahead by 2, best for some time… Plus generally favorable LATimes…
And blacks not turning out nearly as 08/12.
And Brexit and MI primary polls were far off because ungrateful deplorables.
Regardless, FL is must win for T. If he gets that, then the following swings might fall into place:
OH, NV, NC, IA, NM, (270), and maybe NH bonus.
If he misses FL he would need PA plus CO, likely hopeless.

I guess we deserve what we've got here… Vastly corrupt warmonger running for Obomber's third term vs loose racist/sexist cannon, albeit apparently the latter likes Putin and avoidsWWIII. Does seem harsh.

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 3:55 pm

As I read the Archdruid's essay I could not but agree with everything he said about the soon past election.

Though I usually read him for how to deal with what comes after.

JSM November 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Re: Vox Scams Readers Into Thinking Prescient World Series Tweet Was A Scam [Update]

Time to correct the correction: 'This story was not up to our standards, and we deeply regret the error.'

What standards?

nobody November 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm

Regarding "Best pro-Trump piece I've seen," this one is better:

" Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment ," by Max Forte.

LT November 7, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Dow surge…

Of course, if Hillary wins the bubble wins. Everyone with a 401k thinks they hit a triple, but they were walked to third. They won't make it to "home" (comfy retirement).

Meanwhile, Trump is of the 80s heyday of corporate raids…letting it fall and buying up cheap. Wall St knows.

Hillary wins – ride the bubble and pray you know when to dump (and you can't trust the MSM info – otherwise suckers would have seen 2008 coming).

Trump wins – being liquid rules the day.

Ché Pasa November 7, 2016 at 4:17 pm

The election will continue until the correct result is obtained.

That could happen tomorrow; it could just as well drag into January if the EC is tied or, say, the "Russians" interfere and we have to have a cyberwar or something. Wouldn't it be interesting if the House of Rs had to pick the prez? Maybe if the Supremes hadn't lawlessly intervened in the 2000 election, we wouldn't be in this pickle now. But they did. And we are.

The "correct result" one assumes is Hillary; one has assumed so since this morbid campaign began. As appealing as Bernie could be at times, there was no chance he would be allowed to stand as the Democratic nominee. And if the indications of chicanery are correct, he was actively prevented from becoming the nominee regardless of the "vote."

At no time did those who rule us ever consider Trump for the Big Chair. He's just too open and uncouth, don'tchaknow. Can't have that. Might give the game away. But he's a sop to the so-called populists, and man does he run a masterful con. All the slick and perfumed members of his class only wish they had his skill at suckering the rubes. Whoa. Dude.

Meanwhile, it's good to learn that there can be no corruption unless its name is Clinton (er, correction: "Clintoon") or can be linked somehow, if only tangentially, to the Clintoon Crime Syndicate, or it arises politically from the Democratic (er, correction: "Democrat") Party which is the ultimate source of all corruption, even that of the Clintoons.

Nothing the Democrat Party or the Clintoons do is defensible; defenses for Trump, on the other hand, well. "It's just business." Or my favorite: "At least he hasn't killed anybody (sotto voce: yet… that we know of ") So let's give him a chance!

Our Rulers are close to panicking because no matter who is ultimately selected, they fear there will be blood in the streets, and the unrest might get close to their compounds, lead to unpleasantness in their high-rises, interfere, perhaps, with some of their looting and destruction for pleasure.

This election has, for once, discommoded the comfortable.

I voted for Stein, the completely incorrect candidate, though I toyed with leaving the topline blank. Many people I know did that. But no, some of us feel the need to show solidarity with our leftish comrades. So few though, in the end.

We'll get through this, but it'll get uglier.

Tvc15 November 7, 2016 at 5:56 pm

I'm finally coming to the conclusion I'll vote for Stein too for a similar reason. Have thought about voting the following ways ranked by likelihood.

Leave the top of the ticket blank – not wanting to legitimize the charade
Write-in Stein
Write-in Bernie
Trump – if "they" hate him so much…

We are a 3 write-in family in Maine.
Spouse, Bernie
19 yr old male, Obama, I think absurist humor, but not certain.

marym November 7, 2016 at 6:01 pm

According to her website Stein is on the ballot in Maine.
http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access

Tvc15 November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

Thanks, I'll find out tomorrow. My spouse received an absentee ballot and said Stein wasn't listed. Maybe she missed her.

marym November 7, 2016 at 7:11 pm

Also, if people are writing in a candidate to make a statement or as an act of personal conscience, that's their choice, but if they want the vote counted the rules vary by state. In most states, including Maine, the candidate has to file paperwork.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_presidential_candidates_in_Maine#Write-in_requirements

curlydan November 7, 2016 at 5:58 pm

What's your prediction of how many votes Stein will get nationwide? The Wiki god of knowledge says she got 470K in 2012. I'm going to say 3M in 2016 or about 2.5%.

cocomaan November 7, 2016 at 4:22 pm

Interesting line from the Gopnik article:

One need only track the past month's series of outrages, each quickly receding into the distance, to recall that he has done not one but almost innumerable things that in any previous election would have been, quaint word, "disqualifying."

I don't know if it would ever occur to Gopnik, but perhaps people are tired of idiotic gaffes and meaningless scandals sinking candidates. Maybe, for a sizable portion of the country, the sex scandal has been overused as some kind of indicator for someone's ability to govern, or, even though Gopnik doesn't understand this, it isn't a reflection on their ability to speak about policies that mean something to them.

Talking with Trump supporters I know, they are all very much influenced by: 1) his embracing of nationalism, 2) rejection of trade deals, 3) ideas about reforming government finance. Of course, their distrust for Hillary is just as strong.

I haven't met any trump supporters saying, "Gee, I really think his misogyny lets me free my own inherent sexism." But then again, when identity politics is what you rely on to make your vote, anyone opposed to your candidate is part of a vast linked chain of ignorant brains and invisible connections that only they can see or appreciate.

Also loved his closing line:

For, as Shakespeare would have grasped at once, there is no explaining Trump.

Isn't that your job, Adam? Put your keyboard down if you're unable to do it and spare us the columns.

timbers November 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

The slightest bit of self-discipline on Trump's part, and Clinton is suddenly in the race of her life. Shows her extreme weakness as a candidate, and the decadence of the Democrat nomenklatura that forced her nomination through, not to mention the decadence of the political class…

If Clinton wins by any margin that doesn't keep her up all night, will not be surprised if she and Team Blue will act as if this is the most awesome-est triumph ever because they are the most awesome-est ever. First women first couple both being Presidents etc etc. They don't seem to have any sense of just how weak and disliked she/they are, and why. They will arrogantly proceed to govern as if they received a powerful mandate and not give an inch anywhere on policy, confident that the methods they used to get elected will work again in 4 years. It will be their way or the highway.

The increased volatility you predict makes sense.

hamstak November 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm

A cynic might also view another first in this election: the first time that a "charitable" foundation has been elected to the office! But perhaps I am being somewhat unfair in questioning the esteemed institution's charity, as it has indeed been charitable towards some.

GMoore November 7, 2016 at 5:39 pm

Taxable Donations to the Clinton Foundation could pay off the national debt – says Charles Ortel, should a Trump administration request a grand jury to assess the many many deficiencies and out and out crimes of that sham charity.

That is the spit and glue that binds the never Trump coalition. There are billions and billions at stake. Wall St, foreign governments, world leaders and the Gates Foundation, Bezos, Slim, Geithner, Paulson - all the big boys. Ortel does a splendid job on you tube explaining how strict the rules are for charitable foundations.

The FBI has the goods on the Clinton's and their phony baloney "foundation".

All they need is a courageous and honest Atty General – state or federal – willing to literally risk life, limb, children, dogs, cats and extended family members should they file charges on the Royals and fail.

"The onus is on the charity" – says Ortel, to prove their innocence, once charges are filed. And the Clinton Foundation has never EVER filed the proper paper work to do ANY of their activities. AGAIN, the rules state you may not raise money for AIDS, unless your charter was filed to do so. the Clintons have never filed the necessary paperwork. There is a 19 page expose on their failure to file or provide the necessary forms.

Hundreds of billions in taxable penalties and interest will be due, should Trump prevail and ask for a grand jury. He doesn't have to threaten them. THEY KNOW

When you see George Will, LInsay Graham, Bill Kristol and the Bush crime family pulling out all the stops to end this revolution – it's because of EXPOSURE.

The Clinton Foundation is the GOLD MINE. Watch and listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFQkCSEUGE

hreik November 7, 2016 at 7:30 pm

thank you thank you thank you

Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 7:51 pm

Media will call states early. They will have to call CA. Our numbers take too long to count.

John Merryman November 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm

Looking at the market today, the adage; "Buy the rumor, sell the news," comes to mind.

Jim Haygood November 7, 2016 at 5:02 pm

It's over …

Hillary Clinton's planned celebratory election night fireworks display over the Hudson River has been canceled, it was revealed Monday.

"They do have a permit for fireworks, but at this point we believe the fireworks is canceled," NYPD chief of intelligence Tommy Galati said at a city press conference on Election Day security with Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner James O'Neill.

When asked by a reporter why the fireworks were canceled, Galati responded, "I cannot tell you that."

Clinton was planning aerial detonations for her potential victory that would last for two minutes starting as early at 9:30 p.m. - a half-hour after the polls close in New York.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/07/clinton-calls-off-election-night-fireworks/

Since when does the chief of intelligence get involved in a fireworks permit?

Pat November 7, 2016 at 5:08 pm

New York City is going to be a mess tomorrow. I do see that Clinton has messed up Philadelphia.

Unfortunately after tomorrow there will just be a different form of awful….no matter who wins.

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm

Since Latino Turnout has been up and AA down Trumps best shot is hoping that the Philly transit strike and Rain in Detroit and most of PA on tuesday suppress less enthusiastic Clinton voters. Both have low early voting. Then he has to cross his fingers for NC and NH.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/EXyOo

Waldenpond November 7, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Transit strike is over as reported in links.

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:56 pm

crud. Well maybe the rainstorm will blow in a little sooner then it is predicted, even then it will only hit Pittsburgh though. But it will hit Detroit all day.

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm

Otherwise he needs to hold FL. Then it comes down to PA, NC, NV, and NH.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/DOgzk

He can lose PA and win the rest,
http://www.270towin.com/maps/kmP8J

Or he can win PA and any 1 other and win (NH would be a tie)
http://www.270towin.com/maps/Ne9dp

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm

Basically he needs either PA & Michigan or FL. Michigan is a stretch, even with the rain, and PA is a long shot without the strike. So it looks like his best hope is what I predicted ages ago.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/thanks-for-vacation-coverage.html#comment-2667883

http://www.270towin.com/maps/0AZYR

UserFriendly November 7, 2016 at 6:36 pm

We'll know at 7pm, unless he wins both FL and NH at 7 my money is on him going down.

ewmayer November 7, 2016 at 5:41 pm

Gallup US Consumer Spending Measure, October 2016: " In October, Americans' daily self-reports of spending averaged $93, similar to September's $91 average. However, it is among the highest for the month of October in the survey's nine-year trend" [Econoday] - Was it too much to hope for an economists-trying-to-sound-smart subtitle along the lines of "Economists cite effect of Halloween falling in October this year" on this?

(And I wonder how that yuuge $2 rise compares to the error bars on the survey. Also whether any portion can be attributed to all those new improved health insurance rates showering their blessings on the country.)

Dave November 7, 2016 at 6:02 pm

What about the idea that if we elect Trump, Americans' anger will be diffused and most people will be happy?
If Clinton gets it, everyone, except her financiers will be unhappy, sooner or later.

Four years of Hillary, continuing economic stagnation and more wars may usher in and elect a candidate in 2020 who will make Trump look like a meek-mannered gentleman.

Will it really be worth it to the elite to elect Hillary and end up having to live behind locked gates and only venture out in public with a cadre of bodyguards? Will the wealthy see their Teslas and luxury cars stoned and trashed when they park them in public?

Or, should they just live with Trump and like it? If I were an elite, I'd vote for Trump for that very reason.

Karl Kolchack November 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm

Electing Trump will not defuse the anger–it will just mean that for a little while at least the half of the population who owns most of the guns will be happier. That will give us a year or so until they realize that he was never serious about helping them, and lacks the political skills or even attention span to do so. By 2018, we'd be right back to the starting point–just in time to start the whole stupid cycle all over again.

Yves Smith November 7, 2016 at 7:54 pm

No, a lot of things would change. Clinton winning would be seen as validation of the status quo. Trump winning would be destabilizing. To pretend that the two outcomes are the same is wrongheaded.

Trump winning would break the hold of the Clintons on the Democratic party, and since they've made the party overly concerned with the Presidency, at the expense of building a bench or capturing down-ticket races (all down the list, Congress, governorships, important state level posts), the damage to the party would be profound. They were already expected to lose the Senate in 2018 even if they recover it tomorrow.

Trump winning would also throw a wrench into the Republicans, although not to quite as profound a degree, since him getting this far has already put them in disarray. It would put the orthodox corporate types and many of the evangelicals in a tizzy. The lineup that Trump wants to bring in as his team are either outsiders or not well like by the mainstream of the party. So you can expect Trump to have to fight with much of his own party, as well as the Dems keen to re-establish themselves in the face of their loss.

If nothing else, Trump can do a lot on the trade front without Congress, based on the analyses I've seen so far. How far he would get in trying to wind down our over-involvement in the Middle East is questionable, but it does appear that he would at least stop further escalation with Russia. He also appears to have the ability to get INS rules enforced more strictly (Obama has deported more people than is widely acknowledged).

In other words, the President has a fair bit of power to act unilaterally. That does not require "political skills" since you don't need to get Congress to go along. I agree Trump would have little success with Congress, based on the precedent of Jimmy Carter, who had been a governor and had a House and Senate that were both solidly Democratic, and thus in theory should have gotten some cooperation, but brought in a team of outsiders and acted as if being post-Watergate meant he could do things differently.

John Steinbach November 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

I'm probably voting for Trump only because of TPP. Thanks to the trade traitors, fast track passage made it much easier to pass TPP with a simple majority during the lame duck session. Clinton will let it ride, but Trump will probably kill it, or at least try to.

Otherwise I'd cast a feel good vote for Stein.

Jeremy Grimm November 7, 2016 at 6:54 pm

If DARPA's robotics program will only come up with some cool enough robots we might send a bot or two to closes down the flow of gated sewer lines or stop the flow of gated water - or add a little something.

I never never even made these suggestions - a Russian spy working for PUTIN took over my keyboard.

JustAnObserver November 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

After Hillary comes the Intifada of the "deplorables" ?

Kim Kaufman November 7, 2016 at 6:43 pm

I have absolutely no evidence that there's any manipulating of the polling data going on, or how that would work if it were, but it seems to me that this down to the wire close and flip-flopping polling data is hugely in the media's $$ interest. Gazillion$$ are being dumped into late media buys especially for senate races. I can't see how they could manipulate it but if the media could it's certainly in their $$ interest to do so.

Fiver November 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

I raised this yesterday as a comment, but would like to re-phrase as a question. Bearing in mind that the Clinton 'team' had possession of all of her e-mails for 2 years prior to the original request for the records re the Benghazi investigation, and that the Admin was kind enough to allow Clinton's lawyers to be the ones who determined which e-mails were 'work-related' and which 'personal', and further bearing in mind that the focus has been on whether or not any of the 'personal' e-mails were classified or not, I'd like to ask everyone this:

Did the FBI audit all of the e-mails that Clinton lawyers put in the 'work-related' basket? Given State is full of Clinton 'friendlies' would it not be possible that incriminating 'personal' e-mails were improperly slotted as 'work-related' to hide them with State until it all blows over? Alternately, was the FBI granted access to all Clinton's State Department '.gov' account messages, and those on the systems often referenced by Clinton and others that was used for all important, classified, secret stuff? Further, did FBI have access to all Clinton's (or others') communications using State Department (or other Government) systems that may have been sent to the Foundation, or to any of her usual suspects (Podesta, Mills, Abedin, Clinton lawyers, etc.)?

Two years is a long time for someone to think about what to do with a pile of incriminating stuff – something a bit more selective than Podesta's 'dump it'.

oho November 7, 2016 at 7:48 pm

Comey to be fired post-election? (written by Edward Klein, author of "Blood Feud")

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914340/Senior-adviser-Valerie-Jarrett-convinced-President-Obama-FIRE-FBI-director-James-Comey-election.html

allan November 7, 2016 at 7:50 pm

Truly terrible NPR coverage of the start of the Dylann Roof trial in Charlestown on
both the morning and evening shows.

No mention of the fact that a charismatic black state senator, Clementa Pinckney, was assassinated.
Pinckney is referred to, and not by name, only as the pastor of the Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church.

No breathless speculations or leaks from anonymous LE sources about how Roof was radicalized
or who else might have been involved in the plot.

No use of the phrase `domestic terrorism', which apparently is off limits in such cases.

Oh those tote bag liberals.

[Nov 07, 2016] Hillary Loses the Left

Nov 07, 2016 | www.legitgov.org

November 7, 2016 by legitgov

Share Close

Hillary Loses the Left | 06 Nov 2016 | While Donald Trump has been consolidating his base of support, the opposite appears to be happening for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who seems to be hemorrhaging supporters from her progressive base...[I]n the closing days of the 2016 campaign, the rift has been laid bare through a combination of WikiLeaks revelations, a series of high-profile endorsements for Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein from progressives like Marc Lamont Hill, Cornel West, and Susan Sarandon, as well as polling data that suggests Trump's broad populist messaging is resonating with Democrat-leaning voters. v Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by corporate media, many prominent liberals are now expressing their belief that installing Hillary Clinton, a " corporatist hawk ," in the White House is " the true danger " and would be " more dangerous " for progressive values, the well-being of the nation, and the stability of the world than would four years of a Donald Trump presidency.

[Nov 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders was a Con Artist, had an 'Agreement' with Hillary Clinton – Wikileaks

www.eutimes.net

According to a new Wikileaks email, Bernie Sanders was just a Manchurian candidate and a Clinton puppet all along. We finally have confirmation of what we have suspected since Bernie said "people are sick of hearing about your damn emails" all the way back in 2015 during one debate. That was a big give-away and a huge red flag which many have raised back then but now we finally have irrefutable proof that Bernie Sanders was just a SCAM candidate and a con artist.

[Nov 07, 2016] More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

Notable quotes:
"... it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. ..."
"... It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. ..."
"... Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked. ..."
"... Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens. ..."
"... The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain. ..."
"... Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards. ..."
"... The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war. ..."
"... The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality. ..."
"... Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider. ..."
"... Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. ..."
"... Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." ..."
"... Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply? ..."
Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness.

Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.

Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
"No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

[ An important criticism. ]

Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
"It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*.

Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs."

Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.

""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
Precise references, including links are necessary.
anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

April, 2016

Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

Abstract

The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

July, 2001

Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

Abstract

This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

* http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

October, 2016

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker

anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
Simply excellent:

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

October, 2016

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker

Introduction: Trading in Myths

In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

August 4, 2014

Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

(Percent change)


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

August 4, 2014

Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

(Indexed to 2007)

anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

January 15, 2016

Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

(Percent change)


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

January 15, 2016

Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

(Percent change)

pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

or

'income transfers'......

mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
"people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

Chris G : , -1
"Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

[Nov 07, 2016] Slavoj Zizek Says He'd Vote Trump: Hillary Clinton 'Is the Real Danger'

Nov 07, 2016 | www.legitgov.org

November 7, 2016 by legitgov

Share Close

Slavoj Žižek Says He'd Vote Trump: Hillary Clinton 'Is the Real Danger' | 04 Nov 2016 | Slovenian-born philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek said a Hillary Clinton presidency is a greater danger to the nation than a President Donald Trump. Žižek explained that while he is "horrified" by Trump, he believes a Trump presidency could result in a "big awakening" that could set into motion the formation of "new political processes." By contrast, Žižek said he sees Clinton as "the true danger"--pointing specifically to her insincerity, her ties to the Wall Street banks, and her dedication to the "absolute inertia" of our established political system.

[Nov 07, 2016] Election 2016 Playing a Game of Chicken With Nuclear Strategy

The author is a neocon... Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was deeply unfair as it did not eliminated see based missiles, only ground based one. It is essentially a trap Gorbachov went into.
Notable quotes:
"... On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) ..."
"... No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president. ..."
Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published at TomDispatch

... ... ..

With passions running high on both sides in this year's election and rising fears about Donald Trump's impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton's hawkish one, it's hardly surprising that the "nuclear button" question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure for the job. "A man who can be provoked by a tweet," she commented , "should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes." Donald Trump has reciprocated by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. "You're going to end up in World War III over Syria," he told reporters in Florida last month.

For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment, for a variety of reasons, the "nuclear threshold" - the point at which some party to a "conventional" (non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons - seems to be moving dangerously lower.

Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power - the United States, Russia, or China - would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have thought possible just a year or two ago - with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.

No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in "limited" nuclear wars - atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate. The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington's likely adversaries.

Lowering the Nuclear Threshold

During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat to, in the end, the use of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding "tactical" or battlefield weaponry - nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or Moscow - and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy .) Eventually, leaders on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of " mutually assured destruction ," or - in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would, in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.

Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the Soviet Union began deploying the SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing-II ballistic missile in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

That historic agreement - the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems - banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and 5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's treaty obligations and pledged to uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers, the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others, including the New START , the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.

... ... ...

To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They point, in particular, to the build-up of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.

... ... ...

On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what might be heading their way.

In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis, leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for twitchy trigger fingers and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.

No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president.

pretzelattack November 7, 2016 at 1:46 am

scanning it, it keeps referring to the obama administration's beliefs about russia, and claims by american officials. given the hysteria about putin allegedly hacking the us election, and the propaganda surrounding the war on terror, i'm reluctant to rely on this kind of evidence.

Lambert Strether November 7, 2016 at 2:29 am

This:

But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward Russia.

"Even" is a little rich, given that the Clinton campaign has systematically - I hate to use the word, but - demonized* Putin. One can regard the political class as cynically able to turn on a dime when the election is done, but Clinton has also induced her base of "NPR tote baggers" to buy in, and the more massive base is harder to turn. And then of course the neo-cons have gone over to her, and they certainly know which side their bread has blood on.

So, if Clinton wins, the dominant faction of the Democrat Party is - from the leadership through the nomenklatura to the base - committed to a "muscular" foreign policy, including a "No Fly Zone" in Syria, where shooting down a Russian plane would be an act of war, so far as Russia is concerned. (In the last debate, Clinton pointedly didn't answer what she would do in that eventuality.)

It is what it is. We are where we are.

NOTE * I mean, come on. Trump and Comey as Putin's agents of influence? Beyond bizarre.

UPDATE One of the salient features of the bureaucratic infighters who brought about World War I is their utter mediocrity; see this review of The Sleepwalkers , a diplomatic history of how World War I came out. If you want to see real mediocrity in today's terms, read the Podesta emails.

integer November 7, 2016 at 2:50 am

And contrast that quote with:

Whoever is elected on November 8th, we are evidently all headed into a world in which Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers could be the norm.

So even Hillary Clinton might not be able to handle a world full of Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers. That's a bit hard to swallow imo.

timotheus November 7, 2016 at 5:35 am

"Muscular" policy towards Russia: [echo "muscular policy! muscular policy!" slow fade]. And we think Putin is a clownish macho.

Joins "innovation", economic "liftoff" and "headwinds", "fight for", etc.

hemeantwell November 7, 2016 at 8:44 am

Agreed. Klare's order of presentation creates a questionable sense of causality by talking first about Russian tech and strategy and then about what appear to be US responses. For example, my understanding of recent developments of low yield nuclear weapons - I'm thinking of the "dial a bomb" - has the US once again opening up a new strategic front the Russians feel compelled to duplicate. His discussion of the Iskander M similarly elides the question of how the Russians think about the B52-based cruise missiles the US has had for years.

He also seems to lose track of a point he introduces by referring to Kissinger's advocacy of the use of low yield nukes. Kissinger's book came out in 1957, and afair only the US had battlefield nuclear missile delivery systems back in early 60s. After Kissinger gained power in the Nixon administration, they both thought that it was useful to look rationally irrational, to set out a logic for dangerous policies in order to make opponents fearful of a catastrophic reaction. The Russians are likely doing the same thing. I'm sure, too, that talking of a low first use threshold is a way to split Europe from the US.

Massinissa November 7, 2016 at 2:38 am

I like the article, but it seems like its putting too much of the fault on Russia.

Roland November 7, 2016 at 3:10 am

This article on nuclear strategy makes no mention of the single most destabilizing thing that happened in nuclear affairs in this century: the USA's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty.

How could the author make such an omission?

The biggest nuclear problem we face is that there are "serious" military and political leaders in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction, and thus to actively employ escalation dominance as a foreign policy tool..

integer November 7, 2016 at 5:20 am

political leaders in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction

"Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand."

― Archibald Putt

charles 2 November 7, 2016 at 5:06 am

The author puts too much emphasis on anti-cities warfare at a pre-strategic level. A strike will be more likely to be an EMP anti-infrastructure strike. In modern societies, one doesn't need to kill people to break their resolve. Disrupting the provision of electricity, mobile, cable and internet connection is amply enough to eliminate the appetite for overseas military adventures.

fajensen November 7, 2016 at 6:13 am

The nukes run on a dead-man switch. If one EMP's "everything", the periodic "please do not launch today, sir"-signal will not reach the silos/submarines and missiles will launch automatically.

We can be pretty sure that the last missiles launched will be salted with some "well, fuck you too!"-concoction to create massive fallout and maybe even some bio-weapons on top for all those weakened immune systems (from the gamma radiation). The USSR did a lot of very high quality research on biological weapons, obviously, everyone else has whatever they had in the 1980's. People who ingest radioactive dust are goners sooner or later. Sooner with bio-weapons on top of the radiation poisoning.

People, especially people "on top" who should be informed and know better, yet still think ABM systems work effectively for any other purpose than moving billions of USD to into the pockets of defense industry cronies, are simply deluded. Even with cooked tests, where the speed and trajectory of the opposition missile is known to the missile defence in advance, the odds of an intercept are low.

Disturbed Voter November 7, 2016 at 6:31 am

The only way to win is not play – War-games

Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?

fajensen November 7, 2016 at 8:04 am

Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?

They are like 70-80 years old, geriatrics already, soon diaper-cases. All thes powerful people are in a desparate race with time to "set things right", before they lose all of their faculties (or start smelling of poo so no-one invites them anymore).

Jim A November 7, 2016 at 9:01 am

Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.

Of course this is the exact mirror image of the US policy during the Cold War. We relied on the threat of "theater nuclear war" to deter the huge Soviet conventional forces that NATO had little chance of stopping with conventional forces. Of course the Germans joked that the definition of a "theater" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany.

[Nov 07, 2016] How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

economistsview.typepad.com

anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM

Simply excellent:

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

October, 2016

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker

Introduction: Trading in Myths

In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

[Nov 07, 2016] Economists View More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions

Nov 07, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Adam Davidson in the New Yorker:
More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be fair. ...

Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...

This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist, save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...

...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.

Alex S : , November 05, 2016 at 01:15 PM
It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 01:51 PM
Agreed. You should have seen Peter Navarro latest performance. He may be ruder than Trump himself and he certainly babbles gibberish.
Peter K. : , November 05, 2016 at 01:23 PM
"No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."

This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers narrative.

The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.

And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.

Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges via whatever means are available.

Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:29 PM
As Bernie Sanders's campaign demonstrated, there is still hope. In fact hope is growing.

Lucky for us Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary, knowing what the stakes are.

Given the way people like PGL treated Sanders during the campaign and given what Wikileaks showed, I doubt the reverse would have been true had Sanders won the primary.

Peter K. -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 01:30 PM
But then Sanders still would have beaten Trump easily.
Gerri -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 06:39 AM
The reverse would have been true, because we Democrats would have voted party above all else and especially in this election year. Remember "party" the thing that Bernie supporters and Bernie himself denigrated? I believe the term
"elites" was used more than once to describe the party faithful.
Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is moving left.
Julio -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:02 PM
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
anne -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:26 PM
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today.

Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.

[ An important criticism. ]

Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:08 PM
Oh, I understand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

June 13, 2014

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
By Tyler Cowen

[ Who else could possibly have written such an essay? The guy is really, really scary. ]

anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:20 PM
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/does-the-right-hold-the-economy-hostage-to-advance-its-militarist-agenda

June 14, 2014

Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?

That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:

"It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth."

This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story. There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs. Its support made these accomplishments possible.

This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

-- Dean Baker

Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 05:15 PM
Three points

1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.

2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war. If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces results.

3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.

anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:24 PM
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

September, 2016

US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford

Summary

Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:27 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

June 13, 2014

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
By Tyler Cowen

[ Guy is really, really, really scary. ]

Peter K. -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:12 PM
As Julio points out, under any objective analysis, politics have moved to the right.

Rightwing policy solutions have been tried: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, breaking of unions, etc.

We've seen the results. Stagnation and slow growth.

The social democratic post-war years were much better with shared prosperity for all citizens.

JohnH -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
"It's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts."

When Obama refuses to jail torturers or those responsible for mortgage fraud, we the people are justified in having less confidence in the courts.

Peter Liepmann -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 05:52 PM
Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then $200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.

How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc

anne -> Peter Liepmann... , November 05, 2016 at 06:38 PM
Precise references, including links are necessary.
anne : , November 05, 2016 at 01:49 PM
Adam Davidson in the essay refers to this paper, which is well worth reading:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913

April, 2016

Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

Abstract

The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future.

Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 02:59 PM
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
pgl -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:03 PM
I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes a lot of sense for so many reasons.
anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 03:40 PM
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

[ Having read and reread this question, I do not begin to understand what it means. There is oil here, there is oil all about us, there is oil in Canada and Mexico and on and on, and the supply of oil about us is not about to be disrupted by any conceivable war and an inconceivable war is never going to be fought. ]

anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?

[ My guess is that this is a way of scarily pitching for fracking for oil right in my garden, but I like my azealia bushes and mocking birds. ]

Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:03 PM
Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See, for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:13 PM
Do set down a link to a reference when possible:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8389

July, 2001

Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian

Abstract

This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase. Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening stagflation.

Alex S -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:22 PM
My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
Peter K. -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 03:09 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-25/fed-inclined-to-raise-rates-if-next-president-pumps-up-budget

"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.

"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."

PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.

Like with Trump everything he says is a lie.

anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 03:56 PM
Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:

* http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

October, 2016

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker

anne -> Peter K.... , November 05, 2016 at 04:01 PM
Simply excellent:

http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

October, 2016

Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker

Introduction: Trading in Myths

In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.

This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.

The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.

The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.

That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.

In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of return....

pgl -> Peter K.... , November 06, 2016 at 03:37 AM
It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than 1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
mrrunangun : , November 05, 2016 at 06:23 PM
Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving wage growth.

Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways by those so inclined

anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:33 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpp

August 4, 2014

Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

(Percent change)


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8cpv

August 4, 2014

Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and United Kingdom, 2007-2015

(Indexed to 2007)

anne -> mrrunangun... , November 05, 2016 at 06:35 PM
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bue

January 15, 2016

Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2007-2016

(Percent change)


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=8bua

January 15, 2016

Employment Cost Indexes for Wages and Salaries & Benefits, 2002-2016

(Percent change)

pgl -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 03:38 AM
Excellent perspective. Let me say well done before PeterK gets angry and calls you a liar.
ilsm -> mrrunangun... , November 06, 2016 at 05:10 AM
I had a job offer about 15 years ago, the quoted salary was not to my liking so the HR type told me how much the Cadillac insurance was "worth".

I do not think you 'get' why Cadillac plans are taxed............

or

'income transfers'......

mrrunangun -> ilsm... , November 06, 2016 at 12:25 PM
I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems have been ameliorated.
cm : , November 05, 2016 at 11:09 PM
"people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas"

And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk (including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens (and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from the view of those who would usurp or derail them.

Chris G : , -1
"Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it is to die.

The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.

What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric, but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.

Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation is nothing new.

'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls, the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no longer equipped to face it directly.

Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency; above all, perhaps, belief in its future.

Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable. That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics. What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."

Source - http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/

[Nov 07, 2016] Donald Trump: Hillary Clintons policy for Syria would lead to world war three

Nov 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
by Lauren Gambino

Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to world war three" because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.

In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, the Republican presidential nominee said defeating Islamic State was a higher priority than persuading than Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to step down, playing down a long-held goal of US policy.

Trump questioned how his Democratic opponent would negotiate with Russia's president Vladimir Putin after having demonized him; blamed Barack Obama for a downturn in US relations with the Philippines under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte; bemoaned a lack of Republican unity behind his candidacy and said he would easily win the election if the party leaders supported him.

"If we had party unity, we couldn't lose this election to Hillary Clinton," he said.

On Syria's civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the US into a world war with a more aggressive posture toward resolving the conflict.

Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and "safe zones" on the ground to protect noncombatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the US bring into direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.

"What we should do is focus on Isis. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," Trump said.

"You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said.

Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago. He said getting Assad to leave power was less important than defeating Isis.

"Assad is secondary, to me, to Isis," he said.

On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of US-Russian relations while secretary of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil", if she wins the presidency.

On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.

Since assuming office, Duterte has expressed open hostility towards the US, rejecting criticism of his violent anti-drug clampdown, using an expletive to describe Obama and telling the US not to treat his country "like a dog with a leash".

The Obama administration has expressed optimism that the two countries can remain firm allies. Trump said Duterte's latest comments showed "a lack of respect for our country".

[Nov 07, 2016] Clinton, Trump and foreign policy: global conflicts await the next president by Julian Borger World affairs editor and Oliver Milman in New York

Notable quotes:
"... In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups. ..."
"... Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis. ..."
"... Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. ..."
"... Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. ..."
"... Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals. ..."
"... Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation. ..."
Nov 07, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
... ... ...

China

Within his or her first year in office, a new US president would also face a direct challenge to US power in the western Pacific. The Chinese programme of laying claim to reefs and rocks in the South China Sea and turning them into naval and air bases gives Beijing potential control over some the busiest shipping lanes in the world. US influence is under further threat by the rise of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who has threatened to eject US troops , casting doubt on his predecessor's agreement to allow new permanent American presence.

Clinton's likely policy will be to continue Obama's faltering "pivot to Asia", and to prioritise restoring the faith of US allies in the region that Washington will help them resist Chinese attempts to dominate the South China Sea. It is a policy that is held hostage to some extent by Duterte's ultimate intentions, and it could lead to a rapid escalation of tension in the region.

Trump has pointed to the Chinese reef-building programme as a reflection of US weakness but has not said what he would do about it. He has focused more on the threat posed to the US by its trade relations with China. In the transactional model of foreign relations Trump favours, he could agree to turn a blind eye to creeping Chinese takeover in the South China Sea in exchange for a bilateral trade deal with Beijing on better terms.

Syria

A new US president will arrive in office at a time of significant military advances against Islamic State in Syria and neighbouring Iraq, but diminishing options when it comes to helping shape the opposition battle against the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers. It is possible that the rebel stand in Aleppo will have fallen by then, giving the regime the upper hand and postponing yet again any hopes of a political transition.

In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups.

Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis.

Russia and Ukraine

A Clinton administration is expected to take a tougher line with Moscow than the Obama White House, all the more so because of the substantial evidence of the Kremlin's efforts to try to intervene in the US presidential election in her opponent's favour. Clinton could well seek to take a leadership role in negotiations with Moscow over Ukraine and the stalled Minsk peace process, which have hitherto been left to Germany and France. She could also opt to send lethal aid to Ukraine as a way of increasing US leverage.

Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. A Trump administration is unlikely to contest Russian enforcement of its influence in eastern Ukraine.

Europe and Nato

Clinton aides have signalled consistently that one of her priorities would be to show US willingness to shore up EU and Nato cohesion, and will attend summits of both organisations in February.

Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. He said he would check whether US allies "fulfilled their obligation to us" before coming to their defence , calling into question the purpose of the defence pact. Later in the campaign, he changed tack, saying he would seek to strengthen the alliance, but a win for Trump on Tuesday would nonetheless deepen anxiety in eastern European countries, such as the Baltic states, that a US-led Nato would come to their defence in the face of Russian encroachment.

Trade

The two major free trade projects of the Obama administration, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with the countries on the Pacific rim, will probably still be under negotiation when the new president comes into office, giving him or her the option of killing or completing them.

Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals.

Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation.

... ... ...

[Nov 07, 2016] WikiLeaks DNC and CNN colluded on questions for Trump, Cruz

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Newly released emails from WikiLeaks suggest that the Democratic National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions in April to be asked of then-Republican primary candidate Donald Trump in an upcoming interview.

In an email to DNC colleagues on April 25 with the headline "Trump Questions for CNN," a DNC official with the email username DillonL@dnc.org asked for ideas for an interview to be conducted by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

"Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. ... Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow."

The sender of the email would seem to be DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon, who was identified in previous reports of DNC emails released by WikiLeaks in July.

[Nov 07, 2016] Mike Pence Responds to FBI Mishandling Classified Information Is a Crime

I think email sandals essentially zeroed Hillary changes to win any traditional Republican states... But we will know for sure in two days. It also exposed such a level of incompetence by Hillary herself and her close entourage that is really staggering even after Bush II administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true." ..."
"... Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server. ..."
www.breitbart.com

Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence tells New Hampshire residents that "mishandling classified information is a crime" and is discussing Hillary Clinton's ethical lapses.

During a rally in North Carolina on Sunday, Pence taled about FBI Director James Comey, shortly after news broke that Comey issued a written that the bureau had "not changed" its conclusions that Clinton should not face indictment over her raucous email scandal.

Speaking at the Hickory Regional Airport, Pence said, "You have a four-star general that might get five years in prison, before the end of this year, for mishandling classified information," of retired Gen. James Cartwright who was charged with lying to the FBI about discussing classified information with reporters about Iran's nuclear program, during a probe.

Pence continued, "you have a sailor that just went to jail for taking a half-a-dozen photographs in a classified area of a nuclear submarine. So let me say this, if only for their decades of self-dealing with the politics of personal enrichment, mishandling classified information and compromising our national security, we must ensure that Hillary Clinton is never elected president of the United States of America."

... ... ...

Comey wrote, "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton."

Pence was not having it. "Ladies and gentlemen, mishandling classified information is a crime." He reminded the audience that "Hillary Clinton said there's nothing marked classified on her emails, sent or received, and the FBI director told to Congress, that's not true."

He also pointed out that Clinton said she did not email any classified information to anyone. "And the head of the FBI told to Congress, there was classified information that was emailed."

Separate emails also indicated that a top State Department official had attempted to offer the FBI quid pro quo if the bureau agreed to let Clinton alter the classified status of the documents found on her private server.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus issued a statement to Breitbart News, following Comey's announcement, making it clear that the FBI's public corruption investigation of the Clinton Foundation - which has raised billions of dollars - is ongoing:

The FBI's findings from its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's secret email server were a damning and unprecedented indictment of her judgment. The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about her reckless conduct. None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton should never be president.


[Nov 07, 2016] Former House Intelligence Chairman Im 100 Percent Sure Hillarys Server Was Hacked

It is unclear whether it was actually hacked, but the server was so unprofessionally managed that hacking it is within the reach of medium qualification hacker. It violates the USA guidelines for setting government mail server in all major areas. The only thing that could saved it from hacking is that it looked very much as honeypot. On state level hacking there are no idiots or script kiddies. They would never attack the server directly. They would probably go first after 'no so bright" Bryan Paglian home network, or, better, after home network of completely clueless in computer security Huma Abedin. There are many ways to skin the cat, and after the USA developed Flame and Stixnet the gloves went off. At least for Iranians, who were targeted by those cyber attacks.
Notable quotes:
"... he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies. ..."
"... Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty. ..."
"... Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest. ..."
"... So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server. ..."
www.breitbart.com

Former House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra said that he is "100 percent confident" that Clinton's secret private email server was hacked by foreign enemies.

"I said this right away when we found out she had a secret server. I said, 'OK, that thing was hacked by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and maybe some other governments,'" Hoekstra said on "Breitbart News Saturday" on Sirius/XM Channel 125.

Clinton could face espionage charges if FBI investigators find that she permitted national defense information to be "lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed" through "gross negligence," which includes dishonesty.

... ... ...

Wouldn't we love to have in real time, the emails and the electronic communications of the Russian foreign minister, the Iranian foreign minister, and the Chinese? They're going to use that to exploit their advantage in their global strategy. That is what was going on. Our enemies were getting information on our national security issues, our economic security issues, in real time to plan their strategy for how they will thwart American interest.

So what did we lose? Did she identify some of our sources? Some of the people that were working for the United States getting information. If we did, then we've got to go back and get those people out of the field. People might have died because of the information that she left and put onto her server.

Breitbart News has led the media in exposing the national security ramifications of Clinton's private email server. In a recent piece entitled, "Hillary Clinton Email Case Explained," Breitbart News reported:

Hillary's 2008 campaign IT specialist Bryan Pagliano labored for months in a room on K Street in Washington, D.C., building the server for Clinton to use.

Hillary Clinton kicked off her State Department career in Foggy Bottom in January 2009 with a private Apple server, then switched to Pagliano's handcrafted server in March 2009

…Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to hide the fact that she was using a private email server. She emailed with President Obama while Obama was using a pseudonym. She kept her own State Department IT Help Desk in the dark about her secret email activities, because her private email account got flagged when she tried to send emails to her own staff. "It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU," Abedin told her. Clinton even paid a firm in Jacksonville called "Perfect Privacy LLC" to plug in phony owner names for her email network on Internet databases.

The server had an open webmail portal, making it easily vulnerable to run-of-the-mill hackers. James Comey noted evidence showing hacks by "hostile actors." Capitol Hill sources speak in hushed tones about the "Russian Files," which are said to include information about a Russian hack. Clinton was warned of a security "vulnerability" on her BlackBerry on her first official trip to China, and the State Department told her to stop using it. But Clinton decided to keep using it. She told a private audience in a paid speech that her BlackBerry was under attack constantly by the Chinese and Russians.

The State Department warned Clinton to stop using her Blackberry to conduct email business after the Department flagged a major security "vulnerability" on Clinton's first official trip to China as Secretary of State. But Clinton ignored the warning and kept using her Blackberry.

[Nov 07, 2016] Gen. Mike Flynn Hillary Clintons Email Setup Was Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior

Nov 07, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Flynn said that the media is covering up Clinton's alleged crimes:

People need to know what this is and so the mainstream media-all of the media, basically 99 percent of the media-doesn't even bother with it anymore. Nobody even covers it anymore. This is dangerous for our country and then you throw in all this stuff from this past week-you have this case against Anthony Weiner and he's directly tied to Hillary Clinton.

He's under multiple investigations. Then you have the Clinton Foundation, which is under multiple investigations by the FBI, and not just one but multiple.

You have the reopening of the national security investigation by the FBI directly against Hillary Clinton, that's another one that's open.

So I mean we are stupid people, we are stupid people in this country is we elect Hillary Clinton to be our next president because we're going to have nothing but scandal and dark cloud scandal over our country for the next four years and we cannot afford it with all the problems we face in this country and all the problems we face around the world.

What we need is we need to drain the damn swamp .

We need to get new leadership in our country, we need to get fresh blood in our country, and we need to stop the madness we are facing with this era of corruption in our country that has been going on for decades. We have got to stop it.

[Nov 07, 2016] Hillary Clintons Cough Returns During Mad-Dash Campaign Finish

Nov 07, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
But the cough that she has struggled with during various moments of her campaign returned during a rally in Ohio on Sunday afternoon. It was Clinton's second rally that day.

After coughing several times, Clinton reached for a lozenge and quickly popped it in her mouth - then ended her speech just minutes later.

**cough** two days left pic.twitter.com/H9A4zIVIMl

- Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) November 6, 2016

In Florida on Saturday, Clinton's voice was hoarse, but she cut her campaign speech short after it was hit by an unexpected rain storm.

[Nov 07, 2016] Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had leverage to enforce it. He basically handed her this nomination.

Nov 07, 2016 | twitter.com

WikiLeaks  Verified account
‏@wikileaks

Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had "leverage" to enforce it Robby Mook ("re47") email reveals https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2 …

Robert. ‏@robbiemakestees · Nov 4

@wikileaks the plot thickens. He basically handed her this nomination. What did he honestly think was gonna happen?

[Nov 06, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporter Bashes Hillary Clinton from Her Own Stage 'Trapped in World of Elite,' 'Lost Grip of Average Person'

Notable quotes:
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
www.breitbart.com

Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.

Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was cheered.

He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."

The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.

"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point."

At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to escort him off the stage and out of the event.

[Nov 06, 2016] Emails Warrant No New Action Against Hillary Clinton, F.B.I. Director Says

Now the question is: if this is true, why the invetigation was reopened in the first place? For many voters, this story comes too late. More than 12m votes have already been cast across the country in early voting, representing around 10% of the likely total votes in this election.
www.nytimes.com

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told Congress on Sunday that he had seen no evidence in a recently discovered trove of emails to change his conclusion that Hillary Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.

... ... ...

The letter was a dramatic final twist in a tumultuous nine days for both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, who drew widespread criticism for announcing that the F.B.I. had discovered new emails that might be relevant to its investigation of Mrs. Clinton, which ended in July with no charges. That criticism of Mr. Comey from both parties is likely to persist after the election.


[Nov 06, 2016] The Podesta Emails - Undeniable proof that the lobbyists wanted to put Bernie out

Notable quotes:
"... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
"... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
"... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
Nov 06, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.

An email from Gary Hirshberg, chairman and former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm , to John Podesta on March 13, 2016, confirms why the lobbyists strongly opposed Bernie Sanders.

Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "

But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "

[Nov 06, 2016] Hillary Accepted Qatar Money Without Notifying Government, While She Was Head Of State Dept

Notable quotes:
"... according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation. ..."
"... Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation. ..."
"... She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative. ..."
"... The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work. ..."
"... "Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs ..."
"... We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds. ..."
"... only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses. ..."
"... The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia. ..."
"... "The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" ..."
Nov 06, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

Three weeks ago, when we first reported that Qatar had offered to pay the Clinton Foundation $1 million after a hacked Podesta email disclosed that the ambassador of Qatar " Would like to see WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011 ", we said that in this particular case, the Clinton Foundation may also be in violation of State Department ethics codes.

As we said in early October, while this has been seen by critics of the Clinton Foundation as yet another instance of influence pandering and "pay-to-play", this time there may actually be consequences for the Clinton Foundation: according to the State Department, the previously undisclosed donation suggests there may be an ethics violation by the foundation, even though the State of Qatar is shown on the foundation's website as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation.

Underscoring the potential flagrant abuse of ethical guidelines if the Qatar payment is confirmed, Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office . The agreement was designed to dispel concerns that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by donations to the foundation.

Of course, US foreign policy could be very easily swayed if Hillary accepted money and simply did not report it the receipt of such money.

sushi 1980XLS Nov 5, 2016 8:30 AM ,

She has another problem. Previous posts on ZH indicate that there exists a conflict between the Clinton Foundation and the CHAI the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

The board of CHAI is upset that the CF accepts money intended for CHAI but this money never flows through to CHAI. The CF accepts funds and encourages donations based on CHAI activity but these funds do not appear to be transferrred to the legal entity undertaking the health work.

Next question is - Where does the money go? And who benefits? ,

clooney_art sushi Nov 5, 2016 8:32 AM ,
"Pay my foundation": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs
sushi clooney_art Nov 5, 2016 8:46 AM ,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/chai-management-mutiny

CHAI is often portrayed by the Clinton Foundation (CF) as an initiative of the Foundation. . . . We (CHAI) are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the CF, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds.

See paragraph 4 on page 3 of the full memo which is a part of the above ZH post.

The Saint bamawatson Nov 5, 2016 10:47 AM ,
Hillay said at one of the debates that the Clinton Foundation pays out 90% to charity.

NOT SO. Latest filing - 2014 - shows that only 5.7% goes to charitable causes. The remainder goes to salaries, travel and confrences. In other words, goes to pay Hillary's and Bill's personal and political expenses.

The Clintons out Mafia the Mafia.

Cigar Smoker The Saint Nov 5, 2016 12:42 PM ,
Ten years ago I considered setting up a Non-profit Family Charitable corporation, the minimum yearly donation was 7% at that time, of course it may have changed.
The Saint Cigar Smoker Nov 5, 2016 2:16 PM ,
Here's something new from WND/Breitbart:

Citing a "well-placed source" in the New York Police Department, Blackwater USA founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik Prince.....said the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in the Weiner investigation but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.

"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'"

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/source-fbi-has-evidence-hillary-visited-orgy-...

[Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

Notable quotes:
"... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
"... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
"... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
"... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
"... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

Second McWilliams quote:

In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

Make your own list.

Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

[Nov 05, 2016] Susan Sarandon DNC is completely corrupt

Nov 05, 2016 | thehill.com
Actress Susan Sarandon on Thursday tore into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), calling it "completely corrupt." "After my experience in the primary, it's very clear to me the DNC is gone," she told CNN's Carol Costello .

"Every superdelegate is a lobbyist. The way that the system is set up in terms of trying of having superdelegates - you could win a state and not get the delegates. It's crazy."

Sarandon backed Sen. Bernie Sanders Bernie Sanders Dem elector says he won't vote for Clinton A field guide to third-party prospects Susan Sarandon on refusing to back Clinton: 'I don't vote with my vagina' MORE (I-Vt.) for the Democratic nomination. She said she still respects Sanders even though he endorsed Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Beyonce, Jay Z rally young voters at Clinton concert MORE for president.

"Look, Bernie has said 'don't ever listen to me if I tell you how to vote,' " she said.

"What [Sanders] did is show people that they counted. He brought them hope. He's supporting a lot of candidates. It's very important to go and vote down the ticket."

Sarandon predicted a surge in third-party support on Election Day, calling Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump Donald Trump Trump seeks uptick in race's final days Trump touts 'contract' in GOP weekly address Report: National Enquirer withheld story about Trump affair MORE "untrustable."

"I think we've been voting the lesser of two evils for too long. The good news is everybody's so frustrated that at least we're awake."

Sarandon on Monday endorsed Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

"It's clear a third-party is necessary and viable at this time," she said in a letter posted on Stein's campaign website. "And this is the first step in accomplishing that end."

Stein has about 2 percent support nationally, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls . iv>

[Nov 05, 2016] Clinton Deleted Classified Email To Her Daughter The Daily Caller

Nov 05, 2016 | dailycaller.com
Hillary Clinton deleted a 2009 email in which she forwarded classified information to her daughter, Chelsea.

The email was released on Friday by the State Department. It is one of thousands of documents recovered by the FBI from Clinton's private email server.

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain , entitled "Update," started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as "Confidential," was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton's foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds."

[Nov 05, 2016] Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Notable quotes:
"... If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not? ..."
"... The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority." ..."
"... The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments. ..."
"... Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
"... and the author of the book ..."
The American Conservative

For, if true, Clinton could face charges in 2017 and impeachment and removal from office in 2018.

According to Baier, FBI agents have found new emails, believed to have originated on Clinton's server, on the computer jointly used by close aide Huma Abedin and her disgraced husband, Anthony Weiner.

Abedin's failure to turn this computer over to the State Department on leaving State appears to be a violation of U.S. law.

Moreover, the laptops of close Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, thought destroyed by the FBI, were apparently retained and are "being exploited" by the National Security division.

And here is the salient point. His FBI sources told Baier, "with 99 percent" certitude, that Clinton's Chappaqua server "had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence services."

If this is so, Hillary Clinton as security risk ranks right up there with Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, though they acted out of treasonous ideology and she out of Clintonian hubris. What do these foreign intelligence agencies know about Clinton that the voters do not?

The second revelation from Baier is that the Clinton Foundation has been under active investigation by the white-collar crime division of the FBI for a year and is a "very high priority."

Specifically, the FBI is looking into published allegations of "pay-to-play." This is the charge that the Clinton State Department traded access, influence, and policy decisions to foreign regimes and to big donors who gave hundreds of millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with 15 years of six-figure speaking fees for Bill and Hillary.

According to Baier's sources, FBI agents are "actively and aggressively" pursuing this case, have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple persons, and are now being inundated in an "avalanche of new information" from WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

The FBI told Baier that they anticipate indictments.

Indeed, with the sums involved, and the intimate ties between high officials of Bill's foundation, and Hillary and her close aides at State, it strains credulity to believe that deals were not discussed and cut.

Books have been written alleging and detailing them.

Also, not only Fox News but also the Wall Street Journal and other news sources are reporting on what appears to be a rebellion inside the FBI against strictures on their investigations imposed by higher ups in the Department of Justice of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Director Comey has come under fire from left and right-first for refusing to recommend the prosecution of Clinton, then for last week's statement about the discovery of new and "pertinent" emails on the Abedin-Weiner computer-but retains a reputation for integrity.

And he knows better than any other high official the answer to a critical question that needs answering before Tuesday: has Baier been fed exaggerated or false information by FBI agents hostile to Clinton? Or has Baier been told the truth? In the latter case, we are facing a constitutional crisis if Clinton is elected. And the American people surely have a right to know that before they go to the polls on Tuesday.

What is predictable ahead?

Attorney General Lynch, whether she stays or goes, will be hauled before Congress to explain whether she or top aides impeded the FBI investigations of the Clinton scandals. And witnesses from within her Justice department and FBI will also be called to testify.

Moreover, Senate Republicans would block confirmation of any new attorney general who did not first promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the email and pay-to-play scandals, and any pressure from Lynch's Justice Department on the FBI.

Even Democrats would concede that a Department of Justice staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees could not credibly be entrusted with investigating alleged high crimes and misdemeanors by former Secretary of State Clinton and confidants like Abedin and Mills.

An independent counsel, a special prosecutor, appears inevitable.

And such individuals usually mark their success or failure by how many and how high are the indictments and convictions they rack up.

... ... ...

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

[Nov 05, 2016] What does it take to bring Hillary Clinton to justice

Nov 03, 2016 | thesaker.is
54 Comments Guest Posts The Saker

Originally written for RT

Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).

How's that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?

It's possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria, is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall Street/corporate media axis.

But History has a tendency to show us there's always a straw that breaks the camel's back.

... ... ...

As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com , for its part, has connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)

Exceptional bananas, anyone?

The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to "evil" Russian hacking when the real source for the leaks might have come straight from the https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/ belly of the (Washington) beast.

At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin

http://valdaiclub.com/events/posts/articles/vladimir-putin-took-part-in-the-valdai-discussion-club-s-plenary-session/ only a few sentences to debunk the whole Clinton machine narrative with a bang:

"Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.

I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people's choice? America is not some kind of 'banana republic', after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong."

Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances, configuring a giant black hole of transparency.

Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clintons-latest-email-scandal-why-it-deserves-scrutiny_us_58177d54e4b08301d33e0cdb?24hp9z9vxqa6y9zfr acknowledging how Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of "philantro-capitalism" (actually a money laundering "pay to play" racket), a practice "by no means confined to the Clintons".

And the racket prospered with inbuilt nuggets, such as Hillary being http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html perfectly aware that prime Clinton Foundation donors Qatar and Saudi Arabia were also financing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

Huma, the Fall Princess

Now, less than a week before the election, we have come to the crucial juncture where the WikiLeaks revelations are merging with the FBI investigations – all three of them.

Exhibit A is https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF

this WikiLeaks bombshell; Peter Kadzik, who's now in charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe into the 650,000 emails found on the laptop shared by Clinton's right-hand woman Huma Abedin and her estranged, pervert husband Anthony Wiener, is a Clinton asset.

Not only Kadzik was an attorney for Marc Rich when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton; Podesta – as also revealed by WikiLeaks – thanked Kadzik for keeping him "out of jail"; and it was Kadzik who gave Podesta a secret heads up https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150#efmABWAB8ACiACqACvADUADXAIF on the Clinton email investigation.

The Clinton machine, starring a self-described virtuous Madonna, is actually a pretty nasty business. Huma and her family's close connections to Saudi Arabia – and the Muslim Brotherhood – are legendary (that includes his brother Hassan, who works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Podesta, by the way, is a handsomely remunerated lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington; that's part of the Clinton Foundation connection.

Yet now, with Huma in the spotlight – still maintaining she didn't know all those emails were in her and Wiener's laptop – it's no wonder Hillary has instantly downgraded her, publicly, to "one of my aides". She used to be Hillary's ersatz http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser "daughter"; now she's being framed as The Fall Princess.

And that brings us to the intersection of those three FBI investigations; on Hillary's Subterranean Email Server (in theory closed by FBI's Comey last summer); on the Clinton Foundation; and on Wiener's sexting of minors. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year now. Let's try to cut a long story short.

Follow the evidence

Last July, the DOJ – under Clinton/Obama asset Loretta Lynch – decided not to prosecute anyone on Emailgate. And yet FBI director Comey – who nonetheless stressed Hillary's "extreme carelessness" – turbo-charged his no-denial mode on another investigation, as in the FBI "sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe."

Soon we had Clinton Foundation FBI investigators trying to get access to all the emails turned over in the Emailgate investigation. The East District of New York refused it. Very important point; up to 2015, guess who was the US attorney at the East District; Clinton/Obama asset Lynch.

Enter an extra layer of legalese. Less than two months ago, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators discovered they could not have access to any Emailgate material that was connected to immunity agreements.

But then, roughly a month ago, another FBI team captured the by now famous laptop shared by Huma and Wiener – using a warrant allowing only a probe on Weiner's sexting of a 15-year-old girl. Subsequently they found Huma Abedin emails at all her accounts – from Humaabedin@yahoo.com to the crucial huma@clintonemail.com . This meant not only that Huma was forwarding State Dept. emails to her private accounts, but also that Hillary was sending emails from the "secret" clintonemail.com to Huma at yahoo.com.

No one knew for sure, but some of these emails might be duplicates of those the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators could not access because of the pesky immunity agreements.

What's established by now is that the metadata in the Huma/Wiener laptop was duly examined. Now picture both teams of FBI investigators – Clinton Foundation and pervert Wiener – comparing notes. And then they decide Huma's emails are "relevant".

Key questions apply; and the most pressing is how the emails were deemed "relevant" if the investigators could only examine the metadata. What matters is that Comey certainly was made aware of the content of the emails – a potential game-changer. That's why one of my sources https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201610311046920348-clinton-fbi-november-surprise/ insists his decision to go public came from above.

The other key question now is whether the DOJ – via Kadzik? – will once again thwart another investigation, this time on the Clinton Foundation. Senior, serious FBI agents won't take that – massive euphemism – kindly. The FBI has been on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. Now, arguably, they are loaded with evidence – and they won't quit. Winning the presidency now seems to be the least of Hillary Clinton's Bonfire of Scandals' problems.

Eric, November 4, 2016 1:08 pm

After the Nixon Watergate scandal, which avoided discussion of his war crimes and treasonous undermining of Vietnamese peace talks, and probable role in JFK's assassination. And after the Iran Contra scandal which also involved illegal arms transfers, obstruction of justice, end running around supplying arms to terrorists, drug dealing, etc., it is refreshing that after Bill's impeachment on relatively minor charges (do older guys having affairs with younger women occur, and they don't want to talk about it?), to see some Democrats, who have always portrayed themselves as the good guys against the evil Nixons and Reagans and Bushes, being caught red handed in good oldfashioned money laundering, gun running, supplying arms to terrorists and cavorting with and accepting money from good old fashioned head chopping human rights violators, in true treasonous style.

As the saying goes, "The country is run by gangsters, and the ones who win are called 'The Government'.

Vote Third Party.

[Nov 05, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman Who Broke Politics

Notable quotes:
"... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
"... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
"... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
"... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
"... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
"... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
"... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
Nov 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. : November 04, 2016 at 08:51 AM , 2016 at 08:51 AM
This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.

I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.

The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the left.

In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them.

Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.

Eric : November 04, 2016 at 09:28 AM

While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?

I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.

Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net.

Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it.

Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get? And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization? We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it, we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.

America was rich when it had tariff walls - now it's becoming poor - Thanks economists! : November 04, 2016 at 09:43 PM
Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism long ago.

Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them the country is lost.

[Nov 04, 2016] Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election

Notable quotes:
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
"... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
"... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com
Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy and can't dictate its will on the people below.

November 4, 2016

The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests.

Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."

Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights. http

[Nov 04, 2016] The Guardian WikiLeaks Reveals How Globalist Elites Run America for Their Own Interests

Notable quotes:
"... From The Guardian : ..."
"... Read the rest here . ..."
www.breitbart.com
Thomas Frank writes in The Guardian that the WikiLeaks emails to and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta "offer an unprecedented view into the workings of the elite, and how it looks after itself." They provide "a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers."

From The Guardian:

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.

Read the rest here.

[Nov 04, 2016] Erik Prince NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

Nov 04, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Blackwater founder and former Navy SEAL Erik Prince told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his "well-placed sources" in the New York Police Department, "The NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making" in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received "huge pushback" from the Justice Department.

Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton's private email server . "I mean, it's not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they've hacked and stolen your data," Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's email server last week.

"Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing," Prince claimed.

"They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times," he said.

"The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, 'We're going to go public with this if you don't reopen the investigation and you don't do the right thing with timely indictments,'" Prince explained.

"I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they've gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That's the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters," Prince said.

"There's five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860," Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

"NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop," Prince elaborated. "Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton's own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found."

"So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn't," Prince contended.

"There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they've seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs," he stated.

"So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that's the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue," Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, "but they can't convene a grand jury. They can't file charges."

"The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that," he explained. "Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he's a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing."

Marlow agreed that Bharara's "sterling reputation" as a determined prosecutor was "bad news for the Clintons."

Prince agreed, but said, "If people are willing to bend or break the law and don't really care about the Constitution or due process – if you're willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure" could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

"The point being, fortunately, it's not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well," Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has "exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department" against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to "keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed."

"The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done," he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that "de Blasio wants to stay away from this."

"The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling," he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case "have not been named yet," and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

"I wish they'd do it today," he said. "These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today , and shine the light of truth on this great evil."

"From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down," he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

"Sure, that's it. That's the argument for it," Prince agreed. "But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they'd be talking about it. They'd be shouting it from the rooftops."

"This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don't have to make any judgments. Just release the emails," he urged. "Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth."

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that "forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate."

"This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest adviser for the last 20 years," he said of the new bombshells. "This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation."

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

"There's a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information," he said. "Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That's the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world."

"That's not who you want in the White House," Prince declared.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

[Nov 04, 2016] Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run

Notable quotes:
"... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
"... "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that". ..."
"... Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time. ..."
"... My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline. ..."
"... "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out." ..."
"... Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it. ..."
"... I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources. ..."
"... What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to. ..."
"... "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'" ..."
"... I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space ..."
Nov 04, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.

The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.

They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

...I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.

The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.

...Hillary's ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama's cabinet even before the great hope-and-change election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie banks was never put out of its misery).

The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg. He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to "learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action"). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley's seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically, the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:

"… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well."

Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write, "madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue".

There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words "Davos" or "Tahoe".

... ... ...

Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly.

Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.

But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.

greatapedescendant 5d ago

It's all polyarchy,plutocracy and powerful lobbyists for the arms and finance industries. The average US citizen counts for nothing. The higher up on the socio-economic scale you are, the more you count. Except for a brainwashed vote once every 4 years.

From today's Guardian…

"US politics tends to be portrayed as driven by geopolitical interests rather than personalities, and so most ordinary Russians assume that little will change, whoever wins."

"And nothing will change for the average US citizen, just like in Britain. Looks like most ordinary Russians have got it spot on.

greatapedescendant -> greatapedescendant 5d ago

And as if that were not enough, the elections are 'rigged' in various ways.

Americans have a great responsibility not only to their country but to other so-called advanced western democracies which follow they US model. A radical change in US politics to bring it in line with genuine concern for the interests of the average citizen would greatly assist efforts here on the other side of the Atlantic to do the same.

SergeantPave 5d ago

Astonishing that registered Democrats rejected one of the cleanest politicians in modern US history in order to nominate the Queen of Wall St. What do they hope to gain from expanded corporate globalism and entrenchment of the corporate coup d'etat at home?

Matthew McNeany -> SergeantPave 5d ago

Except that it was the same party grandees (Super-delegates - the very word sticks in your throat no?) who all but confirmed Clinton's appointment before a single ballot was cast by the party rank and file.

djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
"What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that".

Spot on. There's amnesia today about where the Democratic party historically stood in regard to Wall Street and its interests.

Watchman80 -> djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
Yep - very good article.

I am surprised to find it in the Guardian.

democratista -> Watchman80 , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
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 .
Beckow -> djhurley , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
Real issues - like economic well-being for all - have been replaced by Democrats with mindless identity politics. Clinton is literally running on "I will spend half a billion to reduce bullying", on unisex bathrooms, and more women of color everywhere.

Is that what democracy should be all about? FDR and other real Democrats would die laughing if they would see these current "progressive liberals" - they stand for nothing, they are a total waste of time, as Obama so amply demonstrated.

ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
The warning signals were screaming months ago and the mass media concocted a smear campaign against Sanders because he wasn't owned and he was the wrong gender.

Sanders would have destroyed Trump in this election.

Oliver Elkington -> ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
See, Trump is right when he says that the US media is corrupt
DaveTheFirst -> ga gamba , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
Then Bernie endorsed Clinton... :\
callaspodeaspode -> DaveTheFirst , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
Yes he did endorse her. Because it is customary for the losing candidate(s) in the nomination race to do so. He said he would endorse her if she won, right from the start of the process. For the patently obvious reason, which he repeated again and again, that even a compromised HRC is far better than Donald Trump.

And he kept his word, but not before he did his level best during the convention to get some decent policies jammed into the Democratic Party platform.

unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
And if the same sort of leakage had come from the Republicans you'd see exactly the same patronage and influence peddling. If there's one area of politics that remains truly bipartisan it's the gravitational pull of large sums of money.
Chris Davison -> unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
Which only goes to show that ALL of them are unfit for any position of Public Office, let alone any Public employment.
gandrew -> unclestinky , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
Except Citizens United failed because Republicans opposed it in the form of their Supreme Court judges.
OhSuitsYouSir -> Chris Davison , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
yawn yawn - what a profound comment
callaspodeaspode , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he "joined the DSCC Majority Trust in Martha's Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July 2014".

Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.

Something timeless about it all, isn't there? Like reading an account of court life in the era of Charles II.

Mark Taylor -> callaspodeaspode , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
And to think that they had a revolution to get rid of all that nonsense.
AIRrrww , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
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 .
gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 11:2
There's nothing revelatory in the fact that this is happening among the Democrats, there is surely a carbon copy going on with the Republicans! But somehow I don't think Wikileaks will be releasing anything about that, until the GoP happens to do something that steps on Putin's toes...
Banditolobster -> gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
Weak, the truth is the truth, ranting about reds under the beds is bollocks.
sbmfc -> gully_foyle , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
The Russian link is something made up by the Dems to take the heat off Clinton.

Podesta was caught out by a simple phishing trick which could be carried out by anyone.

gully_foyle -> Banditolobster , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
We'll find out the truth about how Wikileaks operates one day. The alignment between Wikileaks releases and interests of Russian foreign policy became suspicious a long time before you read on Breitbart that Clinton made it up. And I wasn't in any way denying or diminishing the activities described in the article. There are just better articles out there, which consider corruption in "the system" from all sides - which is exactly how it should be viewed, not more of this divide and conquer bullshit.
Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
It is clear that rigging had taken place in the Democrat primaries, Bernie Sanders was more popular with a big chunk of the electorate including the young, here in the Guardian few people had a bad word to say about him, compare that to Hillary who's only strong point seems to be that she is a safer choice than Trump.
jianhan q -> Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
She's not.
js1919 -> jianhan q , 31 Oct 2016 14:0
I'm not so sure anymore either. For the world, maybe Trump is better in the end (ofc Clinton is by far better for the US). I knew what a hawk Clinton is but seeing her "obliterate Iran" comments made me think she might be even more dangerous than I thought.
HotTomales -> Oliver Elkington , 31 Oct 2016 17:1
The corollary is, Trump is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. That bares some thinking over, I believe, especially in the light of the way we know the political system and the Democrats in particular work. Oh well . . .
greenwichite , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
It didn't matter so much when the right-wing parties were puppets of billionaires.

The political crisis arrived when the supposedly "left-wing" parties sold out to them too.

At which point, democratic choice evaporated.

Financial interests have today captured the entire body-politic of Britain and America, and it really doesn't matter which party you vote for - Goldman Sachs will call the shots regardless.

And they see you as simply a cash-cow to be milked for the benefit of the very rich, themselves included.

ID904765 -> greenwichite , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
Your general point is broadly accurate - however I would have second thoughts before singling out Goldman Sachs any more than say Morgan Stanley , Citigroup or Bank of America.
Fred Bloggs -> ID904765 , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
Goldman Sachs are the leader of the gang?
BurgermaS -> ID904765 , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
I think he meant Goldman Sachs as a term for the larger banking group of interests (as you listed). Some call them the 'white shoe boys'. Everyone knows the banks control everything now.
KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
Let me make sure I've got this right:

you would prefer politicians who never speak to the people running businesses, finance, universities, hospitals etc etc.?

Marjallche -> KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
I would prefer politicians who don't get paid by those whose power they are supposed to rein in.
stormsinteacups -> KateShade , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
you've got it the wrong way round....it's the groups you mention that plead NOT speak with politicians. Please don't include those running hospitals and universities with the worldwide business and finance mafia.
KateShade -> Marjallche , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
paying politicians is definitely not the way to go... campaign funding rules are what is crippling the US....

other countries have much better systems...

or are you thinking of other forms of 'payment'?

JennM , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
I see no way out of this mess
ralphrooney -> JennM , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
hopefully it ends with hillary in jail
LabourMess -> JennM , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
So you don't think that Trump will try to drain the swamp.
Mates Braas -> ralphrooney , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
Hoping to see Clinton end up in jail is no different than hoping to see Bush at the ICC.
Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
"This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else."

This is quite a mundane observation. To which social group does a tendency for in-group loyalty NOT apply? I think what it actually shows is that high status people mix together and are more confident in using such forms of communication with powerful people (with whom they assume a connection) for personal gain. Hardly surprising. And also only applies to the sample - those who emailed - rather than the general class. That is, it's a bad sample because it is self selecting, and therefore says something more about people who are willing to communicate in this way, rather than their broader class.

MacCosham -> Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
A tendency for in-group loyalty and loyalty overriding everything else are two very, very, very different things.
Brownbread -> MacCosham , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
Okay, read as, 'a tendency for an in-group loyalty that, when acted out, overrides everything else' (as implied by the definition of 'loyalty').
Brownbread -> MacCosham , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
So to be clear, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. One is about how often you are loyal to your group, and the other is about the nature of loyalty itself.
soixantehuitard , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
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 .
waldoh , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
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 .
kelso77 , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
What has seemingly slipped under the radar is Podesta's emails withDr Edgar Mitchell, Tom Delonge and a couple of Generals.

The truth is out there...

PaulGButler -> kelso77 , 31 Oct 2016 12:2

What has seemingly slipped under the radar is Podesta's emails withDr Edgar Mitchell, Tom Delonge and a couple of Generals.

Looks like it's going to stay there as well, at least as far as you are concerned ...

JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
That the people at the very top of their industry and professions know each other and communicate with each other is hardly a surprise. Nor is it bad - it helps the world to function. Nor is it necessarily corrupt provided they operate within the law. What is important is that getting to the top of these professions is an opportunity open to everyone with the ability and the drive. That, sadly, is not the case. Nepotism does not help either.
greenwichite -> JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
These people at the top of their professions have a track-record of abysmal failure. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and the other banks should have been allowed to collapse in 2008, as fitting punishment for their greed and incompetence. Instead, they used their paid-for access to the Bush White House to demand and acquire a trillion-dollar bailout.

That's not networking. It's corruption.

infamy72 -> JustinNimmo , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
Who's laws , oh the ruling classes laws.
z8000736 , 31 Oct 2016 11:3
[neo]Liberal may be a dirty word to call someone in America but the author of this piece seems unaware it doesn't work quite the same way the other side of the Atlantic. May I suggest panty-waisted pointy-head instead?
1iJack -> z8000736 , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
Better yet: Globalist. Its an underlying theme that we have seen unite the Clintons and Bush/Romney families in this election cycle...we now know who the enemy is, and they have infiltrated both the Democrats and the Republicans. They have a secret badge they wear pledging an allegiance to a higher power: the Clinton/Bush/Romney families are the jack-booted thugs of the American globalists.
Brownbread -> 1iJack , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
Yeah, they are so much nastier than those cuddly protectionists.
Ted_Pikul -> Brownbread , 31 Oct 2016 16:5
The more the administrative class' borderless "humanism" aligns with the oligarchy's desire for cheap labor, the less objectionable those cuddly persons become.
BobSlater , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
It's very easy to make a case that HRC is unfit for the presidency... Except for the fact the alternative is Trump. A clique arranges matters for themselves and the electorate is basically told to go to hell.

What is over there is on it's way over here if it hasn't happened already. You can build big corporations with a flourishing financial sector or you can build a nation. I would say choose but you don't get a choice.

kodicek , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
Good job in presenting Hillary as the poor victim, when she has the whole weight of the neo-liberal media-banking system behind her... Next up in Orwell land...
flybow , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
here's a link to them. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774
themandibleclaw , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
As George Carlin said "It's a big club and you ain't in it".
Brownbread -> themandibleclaw , 31 Oct 2016 15:3
He also said, "be excellent to each other."
MitchellParker , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
"Along with the concept of American Dream runs the notion that every man and woman is entitled to an opinion and to one vote, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be or how uninformed the vote. It could be that the Borderer Presbyterian tradition of "stand up and say your rightful piece" contributed to the American notion that our gut-level but uninformed opinions are some sort of unvarnished foundational political truths.

I have been told that this is because we redneck working-class Scots Irish suffer from what psychiatrists call "no insight".

Consequently, we will never agree with anyone outside our zone of ignorance because our belligerent Borderer pride insists on the right to be dangerously wrong about everything while telling those who are more educated to "bite my ass!"

― Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War

Longerenong , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
There is still a week to go.

The way this election has been going you'd have to be a fool not to expect yet another twist in the plot.

HonourableMember , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
A meritocracy always crashes and crushes its actors and puppet masters whenever merit is neither exhibited nor warranted ...... for then is it too much alike a fraudulent ponzi to be anything else.
noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
What Americans need to ask themselves is: Are they happy with things as they are after 8 years of Obama? Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time.
Elephantmoth -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
Are Americans happy with things as they are after 8 years of a Republican Congress stonewalling every attempt to improve things for ordinary people, even shutting down the whole government in pursuit of their partisan agenda? The childish antics of our 'democratic representatives' have diminished the ideals of democracy and would sink even further with Trump, who could do a lot of damage in four years.
ID1906465 -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
four years is a very long time! Took less than that for the Nazis to get into power after having got into parliament.
PaulGButler -> noteasilyfooled , 31 Oct 2016 12:1

why not give Trump a chance.

Bit ironic, given your user name "noteasilyfooled". You are aware that Donald Trump (in spite of several attempts to lose his fortune) is a billionaire?

Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 11:4
It has been ongoing through out history, ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy, Romans, Kings, Queens, courts and courtiers. Is it really a surprise that if you do not have a Harvard MBA, you won't rise through the ranks of Goldman's and McKinsey? It's no different here in England, Ł50,000 and up to dine with Dave and George last year.

Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or could not do, it's steeped in history that the well educated take the helm. Politics is nepotism and money has always played a very large part, for every party, not just the democrats. Let's not pretend the republicans are innocent saints in all of this, if Wikileaks were to delve into their actions there would be a shit storm, remember the NRA is part and parcel of the Republican party.

Blenheim -> Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or could not do

Not sure we do .. We're totally apathetic and cynical in regards to politics, and certainly those who put themselves forward mostly aren't up to the job but are seemingly unemployable elsewhere; look no further than the last PM and his idiot chum, and now the current PM and her front bench. Would you employ 'em?..

MacCosham -> Bluejil , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
Ehm, sorry, no. Remember there is a word, democracy , which is taken to mean that governments act according to the wishes of the people who elected them. Your petty partisanship is blinding you.
haribol , 31 Oct 2016 11:4

They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.

This is across the WHOLE of the West no matter whether right leaning or left leaning.

moria50 -> elliot2511 , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
Also cousins albeit 19th cousins. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3210778/Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-revealed-distant-cousins-family-trees-share-set-royal-ancestors.html
WhitesandsOjibwe , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
"Keep the American public compliant and unaware."

Clinton's private and public face. Says it all.

missuswatanabe , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
The really interesting question is whether it has always been like this (and we just don't have the emails to prove it) or whether this is a fairly new phenomenon. My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline.

The current malaise goes back a long way but was catalysed by the end of the Cold War. Because the West 'won' with a system of liberal capitalist democracy, politics took a back seat to business interests. The Clintonian and Blairite 'third way' was billed as a practical compromise but the reality was an abdication of politics. Into this vacuum stepped the kind of self-serving elite the Podesta emails reveal. Arrangements are starting to break down and Michael Gove's much derided statement that people have 'had enough of experts' is actually the most insightful thing that has been said about 21st Century politics so far.

dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
Yes, yes, Thomas. But one click on your name reveals an approach to these elections which about as unbiased against Clinton as Comley's - it's pretty clear who you want to win.

Among other things, if Trump wins, though, there will be war in Europe within 2 years, as Putin grabs the Baltic states and the USA sits back, arms folded - you heard it here first.

1iJack -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
Europe hates the U.S. and hasn't wanted us in NATO for decades. Goodbye.
jean2121 -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
You are delusional. It isn quite the contrary that will happen. the war monger is Hillary. what proof do you need?
caseball -> dedalus77uk , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
If Clinton is elected itll be First Strike using nukes by the US. You heard it here first.
1iJack , 31 Oct 2016 11:5
And by electing Trump, we are trying to fuck up all of the people you mention in your article above. We can't completely, but through things like term limits we can make Washington a city full of strangers to them. It is much more difficult to deal with strangers in the "back room" as you can't trust them.

We need to make Washington as inaccessible to those folks as it is to Main Street America.

We have to break America for these globalist elites before America will work for Main Street again.

Because the American oligarchy has now turned globalist, their goals are now contrary to those of the American people, and that's why all Hillary has is empty slogans like "I'll fight for you" while Trump is saying tangible things like "I'll build a wall" and "I'll renegotiate or tear up NAFTA."

We are done with them, and this is just getting started.

TonyBlunt -> Raismail , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
Putin runs the only government that puts billionaires in jail. We put them in the House of Lords or let them run our media.
AlfaBeta73 , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
fantastic ending to a great article:

"Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out."

traversecity , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
What's particularly interesting is to contrast the main-chance sleaziness of their internal jockeying with the overwhelming self-righteousness of their pronouncements on public issues. No wonder the voters want revenge.
martinusher , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
This is just the class system in action. Or did everyone think that the US was a classless society?
David Dougherty , 31 Oct 2016 12:0
Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it.
mattblack81 -> David Dougherty , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
I think the point is that all politics is the same, democrat or republican. These people are self serving leeches on the rest of society and they have us thanking them for it......well in the USA they have you mindlessly chanting USA USA USA over and over again but you get my drift.
hammond , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
It's called globalisation and it's exactly the same in the Uk . neoliberal asset stripping while the citizenry get shafted
WhitesandsOjibwe -> Longerenong , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
Wikileaks doesn't get 'directed'. It's very likely the leaks are from the inside of the Clinton campaign. They've been very sloppy and not very tech savvy by all accounts.
Peter Kelly , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
That such a state of affairs exists is no surprise at all, especially as the whole proclaimed basis of society in America is designed to produce it exactly.

They may couch it in different terms and dress it up to look like 'democracy and freedom', but it is a selfish, greedy stampede where only the lucky or the nasty succeed.

We are forever told that anyone can achieve the 'American dream', but it is a complete myth. The idea that if everyone just puts in the effort they could all live in limitless luxury is such a false illusion you wonder why it hasn't been buried along with believing the world is flat and the sun is a god.

Stechris Willgil , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
If you want to understand how American politics works then watch House of Cards on Netflix with Kevin Spacey . A brilliant series .
Mates Braas , 31 Oct 2016 12:1
The best democracy money can buy indeed, and they want to export this sham to other countries using bombs.
BurgermaS -> Mates Braas , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
no they don't! The freedom and democracy is just bullshot that cons the populace to not see that it's really "nick all your stuff under the threat of violence". They're gangsters. That's all they do.
unedited , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
The state and big business are corruptly entangled.
reluctanttorontonian , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
http://usuncut.com/politics/leaked-emails-confirm-clinton-campaign-worked-bloggers-smear-bernie-sanders /
Freemoneyforeveryone , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
Seriously? Your story is powerful people associate with each other and do each other favours? Absent a pure dictatorship, that's how power works. Even then, I happen to know you're inferring too much design in some of the events you describe.
Mates Braas -> Freemoneyforeveryone , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
Don't you find it strange for corporations to be selecting a cabinet?
FattMatt , 31 Oct 2016 12:2

This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else.

All classes use nepotism to some degree.

Elephantmoth , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
We all know how people in power act in their own interests and that goes for both Parties, not only the one singled out in this article.
What is less clear is how all this hysteria about personalities makes any difference to ordinary people whose interests have been entirely sidelined in this election circus. Where is the discussion about how Americans can get affordable healthcare, or a job that pays more than the minimum, or how to respond to climate change, for instance?
Nada89 , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
The US presidential race signifies the way the political process has become irrevocably debased.
The e-mails merely highlight the cynicism of politicians who long ago ceded power to the financial and corporate world.

Politicians don't really understand the complexities of finance, in the same way they are unable to fathom the Middle east, or even what life has become like for huge swathes of the American population. At the same time politicians have long ceased to be the engine of social progress, in fact more often than not their policies are more likely to do great harm rather than good.

If anybody is surprised by the general tenor of these e-mails I assume they must have been the sort of children who were heartbroken when one day their parents gently sat them down to break it to them that Santa was actually Daddy in an oversized red suit.

TheFireRises , 31 Oct 2016 12:2
And they wonder why Trump is doing so well, Dirty Media, Dirty Government.
antipodes , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
" The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement."

I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources.

keynsean , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
Just look over here as former politicians get on the gravy train as they lose their seats or retire. As for the Eton alumni - closer than the mafia ....
pleasevotegordonout , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
Yes ...just look at thsi stunning revent incisive Guardian journam=lism that has helped break this open

"But if she wins, what an added bonus that, as the first woman to enter the White House, she will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for generations."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/demonise-hillary-clinton-careful-us-president


"This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramson


"The Guardian view on the FBI's Clinton probe: exactly the wrong thing to do"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/30/the-guardian-view-on-the-fbis-clinton-probe-exactly-the-wrong-thing-to-do

Chuckman , 31 Oct 2016 12:3
"Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run"

First, no, no one in his right mind should forget the FBI cache which very likely contains evidence of serious crimes by Clinton.

At the very least, they can prove she did not comply with subpoenas and destroyed evidence and lied to the FBI.

Second, yes, the Podesta e-mails do show us something of how America is run, but the picture is far from complete.

We've not had a enough look into the Clinton Foundation and its intertwining with the affairs of a very senior official and the President himself.

One very much suspects Hillary of playing "pay for play" with foreign governments, much the kind of corruption the US loves to accuse less-developed countries of.

After all, when the Clintons were in the White House, fund-raising gimmicks reached unprecedented levels. President Bill came up with the offer of a sleep-over in the Lincoln Bedroom for rich supporters who coughed up a $250,000 campaign contribution.

There are many indications, but no hard proof, of just how corrupt this foundation is. One analyst who has spent some time studying it has called it a huge criminal scheme.

Let's not forget that Julian Assange, the man who gave us the Podesta material, has promised revelations "which could put Hillary in jail" before the election.

Frogdoofus -> FattMatt , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
It's more a country club. If you're in, you're in. If you're out, you're out. Most people are out and will stay that way forever.
Wolly74 -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 12:5

The cost of democracy is corruption.

And that's different from autocracy or dictatorship how exactly?

Williamthewriter -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
You're right of course. All of politics is about doing favors for people high and low, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. In the entire article the one real scandalous thing is that it quotes from hacked personal emails that no on but those who wrote them have a right to see.
LeCochon -> Chelli , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
It depends. Hardcore technical knowledge can put you above the technically illiterate lawyers, economists and journalists of the political class.
keepithuman , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
If anyone thinks that the immediate solution to not backing this type of behavior from one of the major political parties is to elect a huckster riding the wave of righteous revulsion to all of this, then they deserve everything that they will get when said huckster gets to the pinnacle of power.

The solution does not lie with the other major political party either, boy would I love to see a release of emails detailing how that organization is run. It is already in collapse due to the eroding corruption resulting in downright robbery of the people, and on-going bigotry and constant war-mongering to rob the world of its assets.

Nothing will happen to change any of this unless a realistic third party based on true service to the people of this country gains national acceptance. The best thing that could come from these emails and the fracturing of the Republican party would be that all disillusioned and disgruntled citizens unite to form this third party. This will take the emergence of some genuine, selfless leadership, but I have hopes that this can and will happen.

Otherwise, the future is not rosy, and one day we may look back at this hateful campaign with nostalgia.

Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
We have our own elite clubs in this country some of which have been here for centuries. All members regardless of Party are connected through elite school networks and by of course the class system which is copper fastened to keep the great unwashed out. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism are all present here too even if concealed by the veil of respectability and having the right postcode. From the comfort of their clubs, their marble homes and granite banks they rob the people of Britain and the world.
Isaac_Blunt -> Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
LOL. Not at all paranoid then...
QuebecCityOliver -> Flagella , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
Yes. I am sure that explains John Major very well.

Gordon Brown does not fit the mould , either.

Talent can make it through more easily in the UK than the USA. That is simply a fact.

Wolly74 -> Isaac_Blunt , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
As they say 'Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean etc. etc.....'
DoctorWibble , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
I'd recommend reading "The Unwinding - An Inner History of the new America" by George Packer who dissects this very well via potted biographies of several real people. The book also covers it's opposite - the rising unemployment, de-industrialisation, repossessions and other themes. A very useful background for understanding this election and whatever comes after. And a good read too which can't always be said about such books.
jazzfan19605 , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
Trump supporters say that Trump is not a politician or part of the Washington "establishment" but he has built his empire by buying politicians for years. His flock is so fooled.
ThaddeusTheBold , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
As someone who started in poverty and rose to do well through lots of hard work and lots of good luck, the "revelation" that this country is controlled by a smug elite is not news. I may be liberal but I have no illusions about the elitism and exclusionism that ruling cadres always exhibit. And if I could achieve one thing, politically, in this lifetime it would be to break the back of privilege in this country and on this planet forever, and make true meritocracy -- not cronyism, not nepotism, not herdeitary wealth and power -- the ONLY determinant of success.
LeCochon -> ThaddeusTheBold , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
Then setup/ join a grassroots party.
I would like to see a pan-European, non-ideological party which will focus on getting people out of the debt economy into economic and financial freedom. The price of housing and transportation and education needs to be addressed. There needs to be less government, fewer MPs and more room for people who create value and employment. There is a lot of innovation out there online for example, but the mass of people are not being exposed to these options. A
gjjwatson , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
This is how the rich, powerful and landed interest in all societies work. Constitutional democracy was supposed to counter it`s worst excesses.
Voters everywhere understand how their governments have been subverted and that is why politicians are mistrusted.
QuebecCityOliver -> LesterUK , 31 Oct 2016 13:0
I was confused by your spelling for a second - David Icke.

One theory states that society would have had to crate a similar model if Icke hadn't provided us with one. It is also, probably, better to blame alien overlords to human ones.

Rainsborow , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
This is a pretty tame assessment. The more I see about HRC (who I once respected, not that long ago) the more angry and saddened I feel. The Dems have lost their connection with the people they were meant to represent. What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to.
Andrius Ledas , 31 Oct 2016 12:4
The funniest thing about the comments of this article is the people who claim that electing Trump will be different somehow. Trump will demolish the system, Trump will shake things up! Please! Trump IS a part of this system, a system that has two clubs, A and B. Each club has its interests and each club wants to elect a figure that would represent its interests. Moreover, clubs A and B really work together, they are two groups of shareholders that are sometimes in disagreement in the distribution of profit, but at the bottom line they are working for the same goal, the enrichment of themselves and their associates. You have to be very naive to believe that POTUS, a mere public relations figure, would be allowed to make any significiant executive decisions in this company. That's not what a public relations officer does. The real decisions are with the executives of the club, and they are not elected, they are admitted into the club. The real question, however, is if it can be otherwise, if it has ever been otherwise, can we conceive of a system that would be different. This should be the concern of all political experts, scientists and journalists.
CanWeNotKnockIt -> Andrius Ledas , 31 Oct 2016 12:5
Yeah but he's going to build a wall, lock her up, tear up trade agreements with the neighbours, bar Muslims from coming to the USA, create millions of well-paid jobs, open up loads of coal mines, have a trade war with China, end lobbying, establish limited terms (if only a president could have a third term) and sue umpteen women for alleging sexual assault.
Vidarr -> tobyjosh , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
"Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the world (and themselves)"

That's the wrong emphasis based on the points made in this article; surely it is "Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the themselves (and the world)".

Alun Jones , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
Time to Drain the Swamp
hadeze242 , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
sanders said it and trump, an insider of independent means, are both right about the Clinton duo's sleazy corruption. thank you Wikileaks, thank you perv Weiner, thank you Huma for sharing (one of your) computers with your sex-fiend husband. thank you for sharing your total honesty and high morality, all deserving that we citizens pay your pensions and salaries.
Akkarrin , 31 Oct 2016 13:1
Its taken a while but i think I've decided. I genuinely want Clinton to lose, i think Trump will be a disastrous president and the worst in history by far, and worse then Clinton.

That said Clinton and the DNC deserve to lose for the horrific way they treated Sanders in the nomination to see Clinton crowned the candidate... she does not deserve to win and i cannot face that smug arrogant speech which will come if she does much less the next 4-8 years.

supercool , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
Lobbying, influence then a thin line to break into corruption and the system being run for the selfish interest of the tiny few against the majority. The US is no exception to this, it is just done more subtly with a smokescreen and sleight of hand.
AkwaIbom999 , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
I'm not sure where the "news" is in this piece. The same rules of engagement apply during Republican administrations. The same rules of engagement apply in every administration in every country in every part of our benighted World .... and, sadly, always have done. The only response to the article that I can think of is that eternally useful Americanism ... "No s**t Sherlock."
stevecammack , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
it is the elite - both right and left wing who have accumulated all the power, know each other very well and have one aim in life - to retain the power and priviledge for themselves, their families and their peers - whether that is by social class, university, religion and yes race. Bitter - you bet people are bitter - ignorant people who don't see they are all much of the same. It's all about the power and the money that they have, you don't and you don't seem to care. Actually you probably do have right power, money, class and race hence the pathetically flippant comment.
HarryArs -> stevecammack , 31 Oct 2016 13:5
There is no left wing in power in DC. It would be apt to say "the right wing and the far right wing".
gondwanaboy -> CanWeNotKnockIt , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
Well he's already aware of media bias and that a Deep State exists quietly in the background so it will be interesting to see what happens after the election.
mattb1 , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
This is old news. Anyone who knows The Golden Rule can tell you those with the gold make the rules.
Phil Butler , 31 Oct 2016 13:2
Brilliant. Absolutely and positively the best piece on the subject I have read. As an American, once a cable installer who visited all the cliche homes of social-strata USA, I find a ray of hope ij what you write. It is a hope that Americans will just admit the unbelievable folly of Hillary Clinton as a choice for dog catcher, much less Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. For God's sake, or the sake of Howard Hughes even, this group would nuke Idaho for not approving of a transexual-animal wedding ceremony, let along disagreeing on healthcare. You have framed and illuminated a portrait of the macabre aristocracy now in charge. I hope more people read this.
smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
Ok, new line, US Military coup 2017!!

Neither of the two main political parties have a candidate worth anyone's time. The choice is between a sexual predator and a serial liar to see who will lead the richest most powerful country on the face of the earth and these two are what the parties have puked up for us to choose between. I cant imagine a general or admiral sitting in front of either of these two specimens and thinking themselves proud to be led by them.

This entire cycle is a disgrace, vote for Hillary, impeach her in a year stick Kaine in as a caretaker and then have a proper election in 2020, its the only sane way out of this disaster.

Phil429 -> smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
There's no such thing as a military solution. A coup to dethrone the power, sure, but let's hope for one that's effective.
Orr George -> smaguidhir , 31 Oct 2016 13:5
"Sexual predator", really? You mean like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton, 2 men with RAPE accusations following them around for decades? All Trump did was kiss women in show biz and beauty contests, and they LET him. I guess you never saw Richard Dawson on Family Feud?
SlumVictim , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
You know damn well, people who get to the top in so called western capitalist representative democracy, only represent themselves. The very idea they care about the people in general is totally demolished by observing the evidence, how countries function and where the money flows to and where from.

The people are no better than domesticated cattle being led out to graze and brought back in the evening to be milked. Marx was right when he talked about wage slavery. The slavers are those in the legislatures of the west.

MereMortal , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
I really like Thomas Frank, author of the brilliant Pity the Billionaire.
I can't help feeling here that he's really softballed the the US elite (the Democrats in this case) by only mildly calling them on their epic corruption.
If seen from Main street, is it any wonder the US electorate have in their millions turned aournd and said "no, you're not going to ensnare us again with your bullshit promises because you want our vote, you are the problem and we're going to kick YOU out"
I mean how many times can they hope to fool the electorate with bought and paid for contestants, all the while with the media having their back. When the media is as corrupt and 'owned' as the US mainstream media, people look elsewhere and there they find voices that are far far more critical of what their awful rulers get up to.
Embracist -> MereMortal , 31 Oct 2016 13:4
Trump and Clinton have been friends for years. So the electorate is fooled once again. Every time the public start to get wind of what's going on, the establishment just adds another layer to the onion. By the time the hoi polloi catch up, they've siphoned tens of billions, hundreds of billions for themselves, and created all new distractions and onion layers for the next election. People are undeniably stupid.
Mauryan , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
This confirms the existence of a shadow government, made up of rich and powerful industrialists and bankers who control the way elections results turn out, so that they can help themselves. From their standpoint, Trump will be a wart in their rear end, because he basically lacks the sophistication needed to hide excretion under the carpet and walk over it smiling. He is already full of it and therefore is of no use to them. They did not expect him to come this far. There is a first time surprise for everything. They did not expect Sanders to gain momentum either. But they managed to contain it, phew! Now with Clinton, they can continue with their merry ways, earning billions more, settings fires across the globe and making more profits out them. It is not just the Democratic party that is full of stench. It includes the other party as well. Right wing and left wing belong to the same bird. All the campaign for voting, right to vote, participate etc. are just window wash. American democracy is buried deep in the Arlington cemetery. What runs now is Plutocracy, whose roots have cracked through the foundations and pillars of this country. Either a bloody revolution will happen one day soon or America will go the way of Brazil.
pretendname , 31 Oct 2016 13:3
It's puzzling really

The US public are pretty happy generally with extra-judicial killing (we call that murder in the UK, remember this for later on in the post), seems little concern about the on-record comments of Clinton regarding Libya.

In fact the on-record comments of Clinton generally, that doesn't even involve hacked email accounts, are absolutely damning to most Europeans.

However.. here in the UK what passes for satire comedy TV shows have rigorously stuck to the line Trump is an idiot, Clinton is a democrat.
I can understand their fascination with Trump.. he's an easy target.. but nobody in the UK media seems to have the balls to call out the fact that Clinton is neck deep in 'extra judicial killing', which I find odd.. More importantly I find this to be an absolutely damning indictment of British media. This organ not withstanding.

David Prince , 31 Oct 2016 13:4
Interesting, but this just tells of the usual cronyism and nepotism; unedifying as it is. We see very little here though of her true masters; i.e. Goldman Sachs; or more specifically the people who own GS who are Hiliary's puppet masters. I would be more worried about Hiliarys ambition apparently to push for a conflict with Russia; a conflict that serves the Military industrial complex and the bankers that own it. DT may be a Narcicist but as Michael Moore says; "the enemy of my enemy....."
BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:0
To be more precise these emails show how the US is run under the DEMOCRAT Party.
Murdoch Mactaggart -> BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
These particular emails do, yes. You'd find exactly the same models were an equivalent lot released involving Reince Priebus or his ilk.
seanwiddowson -> BillFromBoston , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
As a Brit, I'd like to ask if the Republican Party is any different. I very much doubt it.
ID9552055 , 31 Oct 2016 14:1

It's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have XYZ's email address – you're out.

Great article that makes you think as a reader. For instance, though more ethical, it makes you wonder how things are different in the BBC or The Guardian, or NYT, or other powerful organisations. How far does merit count, how far does having the right background, how far not rocking the boat?
Hopefully the article will inspire others to look into the leaderships of American politics where "everything blurs into everything in this world'.

W.R. Garvey , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
The most shocking emails to me were the ones that revealed the Democratic Party had a substantial role in creating and organizing groups like Catholics United, with the intent of using them to try to liberalize the Catholic Church on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

The same people who (rightly) cried foul over GW Bush crossing the church/state divide apparently had no problem doing the same thing when it suited their agenda. I tend to vote Democratic, but I don't know if I can continue to do that in the future. This kind of thing should not be happening in America.

SuSucat , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
Sounds a bit like Italy to me or nearer to home Blair's cool Britannia.
deFigueira , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
With a constitution like that of the US, with its establishment parties sharing a bought and sold executive evey few years, and in the absence of representative parliamentary democracy, the psuedo macarthyist insinuations of this article are as civilized as it can get.
KendoNagasaki , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
An interesting article, offering snippets of the emails that have been released, all of which confirms two things, it seems to me:

First, that the world operates as we might have suspected it to. In the control of, and in the interests of rich cliques.

Second, that we are on the whole apathetic to our predicament.

Mark Sutcliffe , 31 Oct 2016 14:1
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
"And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."

And there is the thinking of the elite rolled into a few sentences.

ImaHack -> Mark Sutcliffe , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-compliant-citizenry /

"Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'"

BoomerLefty , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
One might think that after reading this article, that a liberal/progressive like me would hate the Democratic Party and all of the elites in it. Well, you would be right (no pun intended), but the folks that I really despise are on the GOP side of the equation.

My animosity begins with Eisenhower, who turned the Dulles brother lose on the world to start so many of the fires that still rage today. Then came Nixon, with his "southern strategy", to turn the hate and racism that existed in America since its founding into a political philosophy that only an ignorant, half-assed Hollywood actor could fully weaponize. Then there was GWB who threw jet fuel onto the still smoldering ashes left from the Dulles boys.

(And if you think you can throw LBJ back at me, consider that he saw no way out of Vietnam simply because he knew the right was accuse him of being soft on communism - and so the big fool pushed ever deeper into the Big Muddy.)

And the toxic fumes from those blazes then drifted over Donald J Trump and his fellow 16 clown car occupants - all trying to out-hate each other.

There is simply no alternative to the Democratic Party because the GOP represents hate, misogyny, racism, and the zombie legions that catered to the corporatocracy and the Christian right. It was such a winning strategy that the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - led by the likes of the Clinton's who out-repug'd the Repugnants, and stole their corporate lunches. And this is what we have left (no pun intended).

It sucks!

pierrependre , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
First, Frank misunderstood Kansas. Now he says he was blind to the reality of the Democratic party until the Podesta emails enlightened him. He's right though that the Democrats are never out of power whether they win or lose elections (although it's always more convenient to win them, even with a Clinton and the knowledge that he or she means nasty baggage to come). Republicans have a lock on country clubs; Dems have a lock on government.
Nobby Barnes -> pierrependre , 31 Oct 2016 15:2
i understand that the republicans make up most of the governor positions as well as state houses plus the fed. senate and congress...that is why america is now a banana republic [re: see the fbi interference] and is why america is now an embarassment...run as it is by the republican duck dynasty intellectual class. stay tuned as fascism follows. please don't stand close to me...you're an american and embarrassing....
guardiansek , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
Trust me, middle and lower-class people also try to let eachother know that their kids need a job, and can you help out. And I don't mind the bank exec promoting the dinner of locally grown/caught produce with the tastesful wine pairing. Certainly pretty twee, but otherwise pretty normal.

What should be concentrated on is the amount of "OMG, they are complaining about billionaires!" whining in these emails, and the amount of manipulative news cycle management and duplicitous skullduggery that takes place.

And how about a law that prevents the Clintons from even stepping on Martha's Vineyard for at least 4-5 years?

In all, a somewhat depressing but predictable confirmation that the Democratic party has embraced the donor class to the extent that the donors are now the party's true constituents.

RichWoods -> guardiansek , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
Just like New Labour. It's not very cheering.
SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:2
A self-interested, self-promoting, self-protecting "Elite" seeks to control and dominate. Clinton is clearly integral to this abhorrent system. The USA is in desperate need of change yet the political system is the antidote to any change. Trump is not the answer. Americans should be very worried.
TinTininAmerica -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
The only benefit to Trump winning is that both parties will be blown up and recreated with new, fresh faces - and Trump will be impeached within months.
David Von Steiner -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
Why isn't Trump the answer? No one can give me a valid rational reason. He is one of the few who has shone light on the Swamp and is bringing the woke corrupt world down.
Nobby Barnes -> SmartestRs , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
that elite you speak of happen to be your fellow americans and live on your street..unless of course you live in a trailer park..in which case stop your whining and get yourself an education and a better job instead of spending all your time watching wrestling and celebrity apprentice and moaning about the elite...i notice trump hired his stupid kids instead of cracker jack executives...i guess thats some of the nepotism you're crying about....ya rube.
David Von Steiner -> John Star , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
Trump is different though. He socialized in these environments...the politicians...use hit him up for donations....gossip too him about the goings on even try and sleep with him .
Trump does not drink so at these events he probably heard unlimited stories maybe even Bill Clinton bragged to him.
For what ever reason he wants to bring
This scum down. Maybe they disgust him like they disgust us?
Dean Alexander , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
If the current rumours are true, HC is in it up to her neck.
helenamcg , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
'This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids, ' I ss written as evidence of nepotism. But there is no mention of whether or not these requests were successful. Nepotism requires that the person requesting the favour is granted it.
WallyWombat , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
Indeed, how could the Clintons go from "effectively broke" in 2001 to $140 million in 2007, and $200 million in 2015?
pretzelattack -> MontyJohnston , 31 Oct 2016 14:5
lol no she doesn't. she doesnt want single payer, neither did obama. she doesnt want a liberal supreme court. she doesn't want the minimum wage raised to 15. she may support race gender lbgt "fairness" as long as it is to her political advantage. but when it isn't, she will throw anybody under the bus.
makeinstall , 31 Oct 2016 14:3

"Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers, constantly."

As long as that class division exists, nothing will ever change, and that class will never relinquish that division of their own accord.

hush632 , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
There appears to be an illusion to influencing the events that unfold, rather than responding to events. Conspiracy theorists may go knuts.
Mafevema , 31 Oct 2016 14:3
How different is this from anywhere else on the planet? There will always be " elites" composed of well connected and/or powerful and/ or wealthy and/or famous people.

I have a good job in a good firm and i am inundated by emails from clients or their friends trying to place their offspring. I decline politely, blame HR and PC, express my sincerest regrets and delete.

As for wealthy and powerful people enjoying holidays in the company of other wealthy and powerful people, so what? I spend my holiday with my friends and my friends tend to have the same professional middle class background and outlook.

What's new?

uponthehill -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
She should have said ."You guys are a bunch of cowardly, greedy, malformed humans. You are the cream of everything wrong with society today.. And the worse of it all is,. you know it too. I can smell it in this very room."
That's what!
whiteblob -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 14:4

Democratic government can save us from Hell.

democracy should be about voting for the candidate you want to win, not who don't want to win!

judyblue -> LuckyBob , 31 Oct 2016 15:1

If we followed the likes of Frank Democrats would be out of power for ever.

No, these Democrats would merely be members of the Republican Party, honestly declaring that the people with money make the rules to benefit themselves. What's the moral point of being in power if you have to be just as bad as the opposing party in order to stay in power?
David Von Steiner , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space
judyblue -> David Von Steiner , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
You used to work in these circles? Not proof-reading their correspondence, I hope.
Shane Johns , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
A meritocracy wouldn't have such hob-nobbing going on for positions of power. There'd be no reason to ask for special consideration for 'Johnny' -- since he would already have risen to the top based on his own MERIT. So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.
judyblue -> Shane Johns , 31 Oct 2016 15:1

So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.

I think you missed the author's irony.
SeanThorp , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
Once upon a time these emails would have been front and centre of Guardian reporting, headline news and leader columns, now a single opinion article tucked away from the front page. Truly the gatekeepers have lost just as much credibility as the political class that they shill for.
Ambricourt , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
A secret "deep state" operated by a cabal of families? -Lizards on Martha's Vineyard? Is David Icke right, after all?
muttley79 -> Ambricourt , 31 Oct 2016 16:2
It is well known that there is a deep state operating in America, if you want to learn something instead of sneering and being ignorant, you could do worse than reading books such as these:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/American-Deep-State-Democracy-Library/dp/1442214244/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477931018&sr=1-1&keywords=the+american+deep+state

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deep-State-Mike-Lofgren/dp/0143109936/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477931051&sr=1-3&keywords=the+american+deep+state

MacSpeaker , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
Shocking. And nothing like the bonhomie shared betwen Oxbridge, The City and No. 10, I suppose?
judyblue -> MacSpeaker , 31 Oct 2016 15:0
This is happening in America, which has always claimed that there are no classes here and everything is done according to merit. So, yes, it's exactly like the triad you mention and it is the more offensive for occurring in a country that expressly repudiates it.
DavidTheDude -> judyblue , 31 Oct 2016 15:1
No classes in America? In a country that was built on the back of slavery and segregation?

Please give your head a shake.

DrChris , 31 Oct 2016 14:4
That article adds up to zero, it does not tell us anything. There are people with networks, and people promote other people they know. Nothing peculiar about this, it works like this in every walk of life. By and large people with high stakes will choose other people who they know can get very hard jobs done, otherwise their project becomes a failure. Can other talented people break into these networks? They can and they do.
pretzelattack -> DrChris