Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 08, 2015

Nine Crazy Men ... And Donald Trump


GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election after their first debate.

Nine dull and rather crazy men. And Donald Trump.

;-)

Posted by b on August 8, 2015 at 11:05 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Trump's run is the best thing to ever happen to the U.S. political system because he exposes it as the farce that it is. He isn't saying anything more outrageous that the rest but he isn't drenching it in code speak and dog whistle language. He is the devil to the Republican establishment and its stable of perfumed whores and they are now going all out to destroy him with extreme prejudice. But the Donald feeds on outrage, he absorbs it and then spits it back with Godzilla style atomic breath. Now after Fox News, the propaganda arm of the GOP establishment has determined that he needs to go the Republicans have hijacked the Dem "war on women" and are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Trump over his daring to blaspheme blond bimbo nincompoop Megyn Kelly. This is a great show and it isn't going to end anytime soon so grab some popcorn.

Posted by: Chuck Roste | Aug 8 2015 11:45 utc | 1

Based on Informed Comment - GOP Platform 2016: Preparing for More War .

Posted by: Oui | Aug 8 2015 11:54 utc | 2

I'm with 1,this is fun.

Posted by: dahoit | Aug 8 2015 13:07 utc | 3

Candidates who aren't pro-Israel have less than Zero chance of becoming POTUS. It's a mandatory prerequisite and Trump qualifies.

I'm No Apprentice When It Comes to Israel
https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/donald-trumpno-apprentice-when-it-comes-to-israel/

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 8 2015 13:55 utc | 4

American Kabuki.

Posted by: ben | Aug 8 2015 14:33 utc | 5

From Roots nation:http://act.rootsaction.org/o/6503/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=183160

Posted by: ben | Aug 8 2015 14:39 utc | 6

ALL mainstream US Presidential Candidates, inclding Dark Horses - Trump, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul (who dropped his isolationist/anti-interventionist rhetoric like a hot potato) are full on board with the Zionist Yinon Plan for Greater Israel/Big Oil in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Importantly, endless war and chaos are required in order to balkanize every neighboring Arab State. Every presidential aspirant is raring to go.

Posted by: fast freddy | Aug 8 2015 14:52 utc | 7

Bread and circuses! That even sounds kind of pleasant, old fashioned?

This is more like maggot-infested apple pie, and excruciating reality TV on amphetamines.

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2015 15:34 utc | 8

Donald Trump being a candidate for president and doing so well is for me a sign that the US population is fed up with the current political situation in Washington DC. It's NOT a vote for Trump but a vote AGAINST all the politicians in DC.

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 8 2015 15:36 utc | 9

I agree that the Donald is exposing the quadrennial time waster for what it is. In my humble opinion, we (the US) needed Trump at the constitutional convention to expose the blatant hypocrisy of the whole 'Amerikkkan' wet dream elections.

I haven't bothered to vote since Carter, and in retrospect that was a mistake. Not that he won the election and I stupidly voted for him ... rather that voting in the US has always been fraudulent.

I'd like for one of you commenters to explain to me why we are truly better off with the constitution than we were with the articles? Or, why was the civil war, as fought by the union, anti-constitutional? If you can do either, I may pay closer attention to your comments.

Still, despite the faults, this is my favorite blog!

Posted by: Rg an LG | Aug 8 2015 15:36 utc | 10

Q: When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do?
Trump: You'd better believe it.

Posted by: fairleft | Aug 8 2015 15:44 utc | 11

@ 10:

"I'd like for one of you commenters to explain to me why we are truly better off with the constitution than we were with the articles? "

The point is really moot, Big $ does what it wants, to whom it wants, any time it wants. THAT, is modern America, and sadly, most of the globe. The global elites follow their own set of rules, not the ones for us peons.

Posted by: ben | Aug 8 2015 15:44 utc | 12

Importantly, endless war and chaos are required in order to balkanize every neighboring Arab State. Every presidential aspirant is raring to go.

Posted by: fast freddy | Aug 8, 2015 10:52:31 AM | 7

True, but the era of the solo superpower is dying. So the outlook is not gloomy, since a multilateral world based on realism should be much more peaceful than what perpetual war USA has been giving the world.

There's also a strong likelihood -- especially with one of the stupider neocon Republicans in power -- that more blunders like the Iraq invasion will occur, making the likely successful dawn of the Eurasian century that much more likely. It's probably best for the world that one of the stupider ones wins. Over-playing a decent hand comes as second nature to anti-intellectual "USA is duh greatest nation on earth" types.

Posted by: fairleft | Aug 8 2015 15:54 utc | 14

b --

Good call, nine dull and politically crazy, one lively and all-round crazy. He's got a casino over in Atlantic City, so we in the DelVal hear a good deal about Trump, as well Chris "A Bridge and Punch too Far" Christie.

Over at the Open Thread at 87 I posted some HuffPost links about Singapore's "guided democracy."

And this question came to mind -- "Are the Republicans holding auditions for the role of Lee Kuan Yew?"

Both the locals are strong candidates, in their own ways. See Christie's hounding of R. Paul on the Constitution.

To fairleft at 14 --

The notion of "The Man on the Black Balance Sheet" or other similar elected (acclaimed?) authoritarian would be grist for your mill, I should think.

Posted by: rufus magister | Aug 8 2015 16:29 utc | 15

Chuck Roste @ 1 says:

He isn't saying anything more outrageous that the rest...

well, actually he is, and now, having broken 'protocol,' he'll probably be crushed like a bug.

Posted by: john | Aug 8 2015 16:29 utc | 16

nothing will change with trump.....brics are on the rise...federal reserve/ECB in decline....he supports the jews....the dollar is becoming worthless...the yuan/ruble is becoming stronger....he still wants to hassle Iran....thinks Russia is a threat....if he were to round up all of congress....current president and some previous presidents....shut down the Fed....disband the NSA...shitcan the Pentagon....outlaw corporations....stop gmo....on and on.....then maybe i would be excited....but now its just theater....he is like the light bulb....that gets much brighter.....before going out....forever!!!!

Posted by: michael/tucson | Aug 8 2015 16:40 utc | 17

@10--The Articles did not have an unregulated executive--indeed, it had no executive. That by itself made them superior to the product of the 1787 coup. This may have vanished from current US history texts, but back in the 1960s it was taught that Washington was made the first POTUS specifically because he could be trusted to NOT become a dictator. Polk was the first truly dictatorial POTUS, but Jefferson wasn't much better. By the Gilded Age and defeat of the Prairie Populists, the 1% had the government all locked up--a fact the Depression and FDR did NOT alter. The coup masters knew they would need something to protect themselves against a dictatorial president, thus the Bill of Rights--the arguments for that document prove why the 1787 constitution was and remains an abomination. A well regulated executive wouldn't have been capable of invading Mexico on false pretenses, or running Spain out of the Floridas, or refuse to properly operate the Bank of the United States.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 8 2015 16:50 utc | 18

American politics is a complete shit show.

When the BRICS do finally beat the USA and the rest of the West, it will come during a distinct moment of crisis. The elite will refuse - for monetary or ideological reasons - to do what is necessary to stand up and fix the issue to the satisfaction of the people in their countries. Then there will be either a revolution or naked repression - and the US will either take its place as another normal country of the world, or completely lose its status as a "free" country.

And these are just the kind of clowns who will give all to the elite and fail to listen to the people and do the right thing when the time comes.

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 8 2015 16:55 utc | 19

Well, Karlofi @ 18, not bad ... but the real point has to do with what is and is not acknowledged by the standard view historians ... and thus what is carefully avoided in textbooks. The 'constitutional' coup was made possible by the Trump of his times: George (wealthiest man, because of a marriage, in the colonies) Washington. And it has been down hill ever since.

Posted by: Rg an LG | Aug 8 2015 17:32 utc | 20

The BRICs are falling like bricks.

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 8 2015 18:10 utc | 21

Noirette nails it @ 8:

"Bread and circuses! That even sounds kind of pleasant, old fashioned?

This is more like maggot-infested apple pie, and excruciating reality TV on amphetamines."

I've been wondering when the corporate media will give Bernie Sanders the Howard Dean treatment; now I'll be wondering the same regarding Donald Trump. One difference: unlike Howard Dean, Trump has already threatened to run as an independent if he's not nominated, and has the resources to back up his threat.

Posted by: Vintage Red | Aug 8 2015 18:23 utc | 22

ditto ben @10..

@21 willy2.. i am not sure how it is developing but an alternative to the imf/world bank, bis and etc ain't happening so quickly.. and in other news -

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has taken sides in the homicide trial of Nadia Savchenko, a Ukrainian military volunteer who is standing trial in Russia for the murder last year of two Russian journalists reporting on the conflict in eastern Ukraine."

john helmer is always a good read..

Posted by: james | Aug 8 2015 18:27 utc | 23

@21 everywhere is in dire straits.. The global economy has pretended that 2008 didn't happen, and USA has been kicking at everybody's legs in an attempt to be the top-most turd in the toilet before the big flush comes.

Ultimately we are facing the exact limits to growth that were predicted long ago

Posted by: aaaaa | Aug 8 2015 18:34 utc | 24

That these Repub. candidates, as representative of the Repub. party, in that show TV debate, included not one woman is a sure sign they don’t believe in winning, and are only in the ‘race’ for personal kudos, interests, finances, connections. They have given up gaining any high political status like the Presidency. They all - as far as I can see which is not far as I only watched a few short clips - pandered to their narrow electoral base (white, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, pro-war, elderly, biz owners, racists, etc. The few non-whites don’t convince anyone…) Diebold can deal with a lot of stuff, but not this. Their best hope is what they got under Obama - Control Congress as an ‘opposition party.’ In any case they are all minor players, trivial figures in the long run, despite the face-time offered by the MSM.

Not that it matters.

Electing Miss America is big biz, big money, for some. :)

The present title holder is Kira Kazantsev (her parents were Russians.) Pic of her:

http://tinyurl.com/oaaytu9

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 8 2015 18:59 utc | 25

I used to think that Hillary couldn't win. That her big presence on the Democratic side could only benefit the Republicans. It seemed to make 'sense' that the US duopoly earmed the next election for a Republican.

Then Sanders entered the race and I was left scratching my head. Most believe that he is very establishment (voting with Democrats most of the time, and supporting military and foreign adventures, etc.), is a minor challenge to Hillary (the best that is hoped for is that he will influence Hillary to take more leftist positions), and he has already said that he will support the Democratic Party nominee (likely to be Hillary).

Now Trump has entered the fray on the Republican side. Hillary is flanked by a populist to her left and right. Neither of whom is likely to win. Trumps attacks of the political system are weak. He calls it 'broken' but has not put forth any ideas for how to fix it (AFAIK).

He portrays himself as practically-minded, unlike the other Republican candidates that are ideologues and/or 'puppets' (of the wealthy and special interests). His independence appears to be a 'breathe of fresh air' but this is as much a blemish as it is a blessing. He has taken many Democratic-friendly positions in the past (which he now disowns) and has given to both parties (including to Hillary and the Clinton Foundation). And, he is as much a part of the problem as any oligarch.

And here's the kicker: he is very unlikely to win. Our inverted totalitarian government is designed for a neutral/neutered, business-friendly Chief Executive and the duopoly filter ensures that THAT is exactly what is produced. An oligarch as President is a threat to other oligarchs. (Note: I think Hillary herself is somewhat of a concern because she has a strong following that allows her quite a bit of independence.)

Trump is best likened to billionaire businessman Ross Perot, whose independent run in 1992 likely allowed Bill Clinton to win the Presidency. Perot received ... 18.91% of the popular vote ... [and] Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler. Trump's issues are also very similar: NAFTA-competitiveness+verterans+business accumen and political independence. It seems strange to me that political commentators have NOT noted the resemblance.

My best guess is that Trump's threatened run as an independent means that Jeb loses the nomination to someone with less baggage and more appeal to independents and that Trump then makes good on his promise to run as an independent. Hillary then benefits just has Bill did in 1992.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 8 2015 19:12 utc | 26

I posted the following comment about the R Thursday kabuki on another blog and it fits with @1's comment:

Where was the chin-up bar?

When you have to agree that the Fox propaganda puppet in the little black dress with all the make on is the best representatives of our species in the room, we have hit a new low. The rabid Christian right wants to lead humanity into extinction because Jesus.

What would Jesus do with Fukushima?

What would Jesus do with the private finance owners, you know, those global plutocrats that have run our world for centuries?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 8 2015 19:19 utc | 27

@Jackrabbit, 26:

"Trump is best likened to billionaire businessman Ross Perot, whose independent run in 1992 likely allowed Bill Clinton to win the Presidency."

My take exactly, both then and what would be with a Trump independent run. Excellent description re: the duopoly filtering for "neutral/neutered, business-friendly Chief Executive[s]" although whatever Hillary Clinton's following, I think she's perfectly acceptable to the majority of the US PTB.

Posted by: Vintage Red | Aug 8 2015 19:43 utc | 28

@26 If trump wins the nomination, then he'll get full backing. I don't know how you or anybody else can blithely claim that he'd lose in the general election if he receives full backing by the republican party.

Now acquiring it will be the challenge - he's being attacked by every mainstream republican wonk in existence

Posted by: aaaaa | Aug 8 2015 19:57 utc | 29

Bernie Sanders is the canary in the coal mine trail balloon measuring social discord. How hot is that water the frogs are in?

Bernie will make it to the D's convention but then it will be argued that we are more ready for a "women" president than a "Jewish" one.

All of the good points that Bernie makes will be quashed by ongoing waves of war, internal and external to the US.....and another/continuing economic depression starting in September.

How can you expect to address core social problems when at war? Even if war is the core social problem? War is the ultimate self licking ice cream cone for the plutocrats to use to maintain control by pitting countries against each other.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 8 2015 20:48 utc | 30

Donald Trump’s “no black presidents for a while” statement died away. Is his Megyn Kelly comment “blood was coming out of her eyes and whatever” an election killer? This seems to be Howard Dean’s scream on meth. If Donald Trump survives, it is because the media desperately needs the money from a reality TV election. The moguls don’t give a damn about the future of America. Plus, the right wing populist revolt has started.

Hillary Clinton and John Kasich are the current establishment choices for the Presidential run with Jeb Bush fading from sight. Their ties to Walmart and Lehman Brothers, respectively, are proof that they are in the elite. Will 2016 be another Tweedledum and Tweedledee election? Or, after 25 years of war in the Middle East and predatory capitalism stealing anything it can, will America have another three way election that leads to a civil war?

Posted by: VietnamVet | Aug 8 2015 21:09 utc | 31

The Donald has the advantage of not needing the Republican wankers and their minions, anything he needs he can buy just as he rented Hillary for a day. He addressed 25 million people and showed them that our political system and politicians are corrupt parasites and we don't need any of them. They have already turned to the dark side to try to quash this heresy but I don't see any way they can stop him short of a bullet and I'm sure he is aware of this.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Aug 8 2015 22:44 utc | 32

Vietnam Vet @31:

"If Donald Trump survives, it is because the media desperately needs the money from a reality TV election."

If so, they'd probably do better to strand them all on a fully-surveilled desert island and declare the last survivor the winner. Certainly mirrors their worldview. They could call it "President of the Flies".

Posted by: Vintage Red | Aug 8 2015 22:48 utc | 33

“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalised and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been,” wrote Fidel Ruis Castro 2012.

A candidates from 2012 appear to be an "intellectuals" in comparison with these ones. While an ignorance have been well established, it is even desirable trait among politicians in the US, an idiocy of the US society is few notches up in its meanings. GOP has managed to outdo itself. Probably few literals and academics would have right words to describe these creeps in true light, the words can't do it.

But on the basic level these people are simply the sociopaths.

Posted by: Neretva'43 | Aug 8 2015 23:35 utc | 34

Absolute proof, the band Green Day was right, the USA is truly "Idiot America":

http://news.yahoo.com/massive-viewer-numbers-us-presidential-debate-fox-190446396.html#

Posted by: ben | Aug 9 2015 0:48 utc | 35

Green day: https://youtu.be/Ee_uujKuJMI

Posted by: ben | Aug 9 2015 0:53 utc | 36

He looks good in front of all those 17 Bozos on the Mil.Gov pension for life tit.
If you put him in front of 17 Admirals/Generals, he would look just as good, too.
If you put him in a top hat at the Barnum & Bailey Circus, he would look as good.
If you took his portrait before UK map in a Winston Churchill outfit, also good.
Or put him on the bow of a French privateer in a Napoleon uniform, wow, a leader!

Now for a reality check.

Donald Trump is a pure Vampire. He is from the "refinance of the refinance of the refinance of the refinance" synthetic collateral debt obligation usurious odious Transferers of bankrupt private R/E holdings onto the backs of USAryan taxpayers.
Donald Trump is a godfather, mafia casino boss, a money launderer, a tax dodger.
Trump is what Hillary & Bill Show can only dream of in their grifting philandery.

This is just a vision of what a blackout drunk sees before their world collapses.

Posted by: Chipnik | Aug 9 2015 1:27 utc | 37

ben at 36 -- American Idiot is great record, last I actually bought in record store, I think. Here's my favorite cut from it, live.

Posted by: rufus magister | Aug 9 2015 1:41 utc | 38

Am I the only one who thinks rhe Butcher of Benghazi won the debate?

Posted by: Anunnaki | Aug 9 2015 2:07 utc | 39

Trump being chosen as Re-thuglican candidate or more so as POTUS, by big $ would be perfect for the self lying delusion that is the USSA's fake image in the West....And that is why it's not going to happen.

The vital role that self lying cowards absorb PR lies about the benevolent US among the majority of the people in the West, is still crucial to the empire. The smart money knows this very well, and Obama is the perfect example of that.

Because of that, The POTUS role is not just for the US electorate, but for the world empire, that needs nothing to break the delusion too much, which Trump goes too hard against.

Trump said that he would make the US's Nuclear weapons more meaningful...What a fucking despicable nut job. But only 1% less so than the other shitheads up there.

Posted by: tom | Aug 9 2015 2:14 utc | 40

Media Matters (MM) gave a good description of what happened in the presidential debate. FOX News was indeed remarkably critical for the republican candidates.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/07/what-really-happened-at-last-nights-fox-news-de/204832

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 9 2015 2:42 utc | 41

14

Read 7. Now re-read it, thinking 'outcomes'. It's always about the OUTCOMES.

Outcome 1: Control energy flows to EU and the world. NEGATIVE for EU.
Outcome 2: Control NATO in perpetual war with Eurasia. NEGATIVE for EU.
Outcome 3: Enhance uncontrolled MENA refugees outflows. NEGATIVE for EU.
Outcome 4: Maintain US$ supremacy over the Euro € drama. NEGATIVE for EU.

In fact, the only populations worse off than the BRICS, whose populations will be left to starve, is EU, whose population will experience Night of the Living Dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxZxThvKI4

Posted by: Chipnik | Aug 9 2015 3:43 utc | 42

I thought that Megan Kelly should have offered Scott Walker a 'life line' to call the Koch Brothers for the correct answers. Christie did what the Repubs accuse Obama of doing. When Chrissy boy blamed New Jersey's financial short falls on the previous administration, well what was that all about Republicans? Rand just can't help looking frustrated, and coming off as though he is the smartest man in the room. Bespectacled Jeb who is probably confused to who all these other guys were, came off as though he was at the wrong event. Ben Carson I've heard is a fantastic surgeon, he should stick to doctoring. The Donald is having fun. For the Trumpster he is loving it, because finally American politics has come down to his level...Reality TV. Megan Kelly in my estimation should thank Trump, because she is getting all the publicity she needs to become a true cable TV superstar. We have arrived at that point where America is completely clueless and doesn't know what to do shout it.

Posted by: Joe Tedesky | Aug 9 2015 4:19 utc | 43

Jackrabbit has a great point, but...

Trump always runs.

Trump always drops out.

At least he keeps Servergate out of the mainstream news, eh?

Posted by: Cahaba | Aug 9 2015 6:33 utc | 44

Donald Trump Schools Whiny Brit - "Crimea is Your Problem, Not Ours" (Video)
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/trump-crimea-europes-problem-why-should-us-allways-be-policeman-world/ri9118

Russia Insider Needs Your Help! (Video)
http://www.russia-insider.com/en/russia-insider-needs-your-help-please-donate-today-video-appeal/ri9140

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 9 2015 8:48 utc | 45

What Kind of Person Would Vote For Donald Trump? These People.
http://www.gq.com/story/trump-supporters-gop-campaign-iowa

Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 9 2015 8:51 utc | 46

rufus magister @15:

No.

Posted by: fairleft | Aug 9 2015 9:14 utc | 47

The GOP had its chance to refute or at least distance itself from the sort of rhetoric that Trump has come to embrace and now it has come back to haunt and embarrass the party.

Posted by: Ralphieboy | Aug 9 2015 11:17 utc | 48

WSWS as usual takes a humorless but probably the most appropriate point of view:

The ten candidates who assembled on the stage, headed by billionaire Donald Trump, represented and appealed to everything rotten and backward in American society: racism, misogynism, anti-immigrant chauvinism, religious bigotry, militarism and the worship of accumulated wealth.

Appropriately, the event was broadcast by Fox News, the propaganda mouthpiece of the US ultra-right and flagship of the media empire of billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Three multi-millionaire representatives of Fox News, supposed journalists, served as “moderators,” or, more accurately, instigators and facilitators of political pornography.

The audience in the arena, where the Republican nominating convention will be held next summer, was as foul as the candidates and the questioners. They cheered for torture, for war, for cuts in essential social services, for attacks on democratic rights.

Posted by: fairleft | Aug 9 2015 12:00 utc | 49

If this debate did not send a chill up your back; then you are immune to horror. Often the questions coming from the moderators were laden with lies. The whole thing showcased the monstrosity that our political life has become. It is so grotesque that one must laugh at it, or feel sickened, or have a vivid nightmare after watching it.

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 9 2015 13:15 utc | 50

fairleft at 47

Puzzlimg.

Posted by: rufus magister | Aug 9 2015 13:33 utc | 51

Folks it has been awhile since I took time to comment here at this fine spot, but the Trump question inspires me.

Trump is America's Hitler... I could see the freak becoming elected, and soon after that, declaring marshal law. The average white guy will eat it up, both the military type and the anti-government types, as well as all the other folks wanting change. Change will come, just like it did in Germany (and Russia, Cambodia, The Balkans... anywhere despots ruled).

History shows us how America will turn out (regardless of who is elected): terrible. We'll slip into a financial depression, become even more warlike, more self-centered and soon after, the rounding-up of people who disagree. How many will die before our collective stupidity is reigned in?

Sigh.

I feel like a sober person in the back seat of a vehicle driven by a meth-head drunk going 100 mph on Highway 50 between Ouray and Silverton Colorado... we're going to crash, it's just a matter of where.

Peace

Posted by: Dave | Aug 9 2015 13:58 utc | 52

Video talk from TRNN. Quality of audio, not so good, but, the discussion is.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14426

Posted by: ben | Aug 9 2015 14:27 utc | 53

Why are people here so anti-Trump, like Clinton would be any better?

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 9 2015 14:45 utc | 54

I loathed Trump until he got into the race, the longer he stays the better because it keeps the 16 Bibi-bots talking about him instead of demagoguing to try to kill the Iran deal. That those pigs are squealing misogyny is laughable considering how they all want to control the vagina of every woman in America, pack of corrupt, lying hypocritical swine. Fox and the GOP created Trump and now they are whining that he has stolen their thunder. Better yet, all the billionaire sugar daddies like the Kochs and fat Adelson are shitting bricks over Trump and are putting pressure on the party bosses to dump him. It's the greatest show on earth now and the longer it goes, the better. I do however somewhat suspect that he may indeed be a Clinton mole with a mission to disrupt but then again perhaps he's just a megalomaniac. At any rate the GOP deserves him and seeing misogynist sacks of shit like Erick Erickson wailing like an arbiter of goodness makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: Uranus Johnson | Aug 9 2015 14:51 utc | 55

what's not to like? would make it damn near impossible to sit on the fence if trump became prez. could spur seismic reactions both domestically and internationally. light a fire under a broad spectrum of actors to finally extinguish this empire's twilight. no other candidate will provoke a reaction like trump. nor reveal so openly the rot and cynicism behind the political structure.

Posted by: b real | Aug 9 2015 15:19 utc | 56

Trump is a crazy man as well.

Posted by: Willy2 | Aug 9 2015 17:26 utc | 57

Haven't followed the imminent election, but going out doors and taking stock of the mob that populates the US at this moment in time, we are a growing population of total yahoos. Can't really blame it on the yahoos, whoever creates the illusion of these elections is definitely culpable in the monsters it creates. god forbid anyone in a year or so should be elected at this point.

Posted by: Geoff | Aug 9 2015 18:00 utc | 58

For Trump, I really can't imagine the RNC would let him become the nominee. That role is most certainly reserved for Jeb Bush, a man who is as close to the true center of global intelligence and corporate power as any human being is possible to be.

Trump may well try and act as a spoiler as did Perot in 1992, but he'll be well warned that Perot was put through the ringer for doing so. I think Trump is just a publicity hound. The moment the realities of power politics threatened his materiel well being, he'd duck out faster than you could say "you're fired".

Perot at the very least had sincere convictions about the criminal nature of those around Bush at the time (though now he's back to endorsing Republicans rather than challenging them). Trump has, I'm convinced, zero convictions at all.

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 9 2015 18:33 utc | 59

There must be some generation gap.

Expected the types of responses on here re: trump, that he's Hitler, a buffoon, etc.
So what does that make you: Hillary's fangirls?

There's constant complaining about how Washington DC is run, and Trump is probably the only chance of even remotely changing its culture, but he receives nothing but vitriol and hatred.

Get a clue - there will never be a third party as long as our union stands. You might as well eat bullets if you can't accept the fuckery that you continue to vote for. You know good and well who the chosen ones are.

As for me, I quit voting in the presidential box, and might possibly vote for trump if given the chance

Posted by: aaaaa | Aug 9 2015 20:35 utc | 60

Make no mistake about it, the US presidential race is nothing other than pure theatre; the inclusion of the bombastic “Donald” only serves to provide the race with “reality TV” flavor. In the end the new POTUS will be the “nominal” leader of a corporatist state which is not only the most militarized (posing as equal a threat both internationally and domestically) in world history; but possesses the most state-of-the-art surveillance system, networked throughout the entire world, that keeps tabs on each and every one of us – including whoever occupies the Oval Office. So, it is one thing to keep some kind of score card on the egocentricities of the clown-act vying for the office of the POTUS; it is quite another to lose sight of the fact that political campaigns are nothing other than the grand illusion that politics matter at all.

At least with the participation of Trump in the race, there is some exposure to the 800 pound gorillas (the sleazy relationship between politicians and corporate money) that none of the other candidates dare to speak about. Whether the American public pays much attention to Trump’s candidness is quite another matter. Extraordinarily, in regard to “Hillary” there is no amount of evidence regarding her scandal-ridden baggage that would in any way deter those with starry-eyed devotion to her candidacy. Which begs the following question: is the dominance of mainstream media (as the propaganda apparatus of the corporatist state) so powerful that there never again can be any viable political or grass-roots challenge to the existing neoliberal/neoconservative hegemony?

Posted by: bjmaclac | Aug 9 2015 21:01 utc | 61

guest 77 at 59:

Trump may well try and act as a spoiler as did Perot in 1992, but he'll be well warned that Perot was put through the ringer for doing so.

Yes. Yet many differences.

It seems to me that Ross Perot was a more ‘worthy’ - if one can apply any standards at all! - candidate than Trump now.

Others, US comrades (as all is now about partners and friends and so on :) ), will be better judges.

Prob my feel, my memory, is because it was in the past, where positions made at least a little sense, or one thought they did…for ex. I remember Perot opposed the Gulf war.

Perot had much more political experience than Trump. I can’t see Trump doing as well as Perot did, impossible, NO.

In Perot’s POL ADS, looked them up just now, was surprised, he, at the time (around 1992):

— wants to reduce the Gvmt. deficit

— laments the loss of dollar value -“now two parents have to work”- though imho that relationship does not hold

— blasts growing inequality, with chart, numbers - the top 1% increased income by 180%, etc. - (see the house-flipper Dem. E Warren for similar discourse. She probably stole some points.) He says: Trickle down economics didn’t trickle. , repeated several times in different ads.

— demonstrates that hourly wages sank, which was true even then, he related it to unemployment, — tallies Corporate executive salaries (chart) and compared with Europe and Japan (lower or acceptable) .. and more relevant, the % of ppl earning less than 12.000 dollars a year grew alarmingly, etc.

Who owns the future? Asia! he says. (GDP Growth stats.) Pro: Public investment growth. Mentions Germany. Quote: “We’d better get busy” - “We need long-term thinking” ..

His solutions, proposals, see link .. defense spending is mentioned but obscured... He proposes high tax on gasoline…and fixing health care …

Ha ha ha. Ross Perot was more of a radical leftist than Tsipras or Hollande!

C span

http://tinyurl.com/q9cuhg3

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 9 2015 21:35 utc | 62

@ karlof1 | Aug 8, 2015 12:50:56 PM | 18,

but back in the 1960s it was taught that Washington was made the first POTUS specifically because he could be trusted to NOT become a dictator

The first president of the US was John Hanson.

The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777. Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land). Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country. John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the Revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress.

As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a monarch. All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington.

Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents. [US Supreme Court documents show that either Jefferson held up the inauguration of John Adams in 1797 or it was Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801 that was held up because they couldn’t locate “President Hanson’s Great Seal of the United States.” Can’t remember and don’t feel like searching for the docs on other computer.] President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. [And Post Office.] Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.

Some try to debunk this because the rumor is that Hanson was half Swedish, half black (a “Freeman”). Evidence that he had served as first Prez was wiped from history during the Civil War for obvious reasons. The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period. Washington extended it to four years to allow time for his French architect to create the White House and lay out DC according to Masonic geometric principles. Washington’s office for the majority of those four years was Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan (Wall Street)—Federal Hall NYC was the first US Capitol--a fact prominently displayed on brass plaques around the Tavern, and where I spend many many many lunch hours, staring at the reminders of it. Not to mention, negotiating the unbelievably low ceilings on the way to the head.

Posted by: MRW | Aug 9 2015 23:32 utc | 63

I'm loving the Donald Trump Show.

Who was that equally vulgar and out-of-control Russian official a few years ago that American diplomats and Sunday pundits sneered at as evidence that Russia was a third-world backwater? Thought his name began with a Liv or a Lev, but probably wrong.

Posted by: MRW | Aug 9 2015 23:45 utc | 64

"— wants to reduce the Gvmt. deficit"

Translation: wants to reduce non-government savings.

Posted by: paulmeli | Aug 10 2015 0:49 utc | 65

wrt claims about john hanson - look to be pretty well debunked here

Posted by: b real | Aug 10 2015 1:54 utc | 66

I have recently returned from being one of the 28K that came out to hear Bernie Sanders in Portland Oregon. As you can imagine, the speech by Bernie bore little resemblance to the sanctimonious groveling by the right puppet wannabees.

As the kabuki we call politics evolves this go round, be warned that the BS is going to start flying thick and fast sooner than normal.

Just as there is speculation on how Trump will implode/explode or be taken out by other forces, the same holds true for Bernie Sanders. Bernie has painted a big sign on his back that the RepublaCrats don't want the public to read.

One of the quips that Bernie made tonight that got an extended applause was when he asked why there are folks incarcerated for smoking marijuana but not one banker has done time for their criminality.

You can only polish the turd of hypocrisy so much and lets hope we are at the tipping point.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 10 2015 5:26 utc | 67

@67

I guess you missed the Bernie Fest where the lovely White Liberals called for the Tasering and arrest of the young Black women demonstrators.

Feel The Bern!

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Aug 10 2015 6:08 utc | 68

@68 Wayoutwest

Are you paid by the word, general misrepresentation or are you a salaried proffer of propaganda?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 10 2015 6:42 utc | 69

@68 Wayoutwest,

I have to wonder why the [rude, loud, incoherent] blacklivesmatter ladies, funded by Soros, keep interfering with other people's rights to listen to a speaker but only do it when the speaker is Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Why aren't they heckling or yanking the mic away from some of those retarded Republicans, who clearly have no interest in black issues or women's issues and who are openly taking away their voting rights in state after state? For that matter, why aren't they heckling H. Clinton, who has yet to talk about police/prison reform ans won't talk about the trade agreements that offshored a shit-ton of black jobs?

Posted by: teri | Aug 10 2015 9:49 utc | 70

aaaaa @60:

So the people who don't take Trump seriously, who see him as a jokey symptom of this sham democracy, are generation-gapped geezers and Hillary fans? Tell me then, what is it you young'uns find so appealing about him? And this old codger wants more about that glitzy 'change of culture' you wish The Donald would bring to the White House. But speak up, I can't afford a hearing aid.

Posted by: fairleft | Aug 10 2015 9:59 utc | 71

@62

I remember 1992, Noirette. Clinton, Bush XLI, and Perot. I voted for Perot. Clinton surely was a disaster ... Yugoslavia, the 'repeal of Glass-Steagall', as MRW pointed out - the open field given to the derivatives : Summer, Reich, the SEC guy from Merill Lynch ... but Bush XLI would have been at least as bad. Now, having run through 8 years of Nobel Peace, we're being set up for Bush/Clinton redux. And do we love it! Started talking about the Hillary and the 2016 election in October 2014 ... at counterpunch at least. There is nothing new here.

There is no hope with the present political class - with the present dictatorship of the TNCs and Trans National Media, actually, the shills on the stage don't even count.

If we were serious we'd remember


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I'd say Responsibility rather than Right. I have a plan. All we need do is to work it ... it's not at all original. Any high-schooler of moderate intelligence could work it out, probably has. It's just the doing it part ... the will ... that is lacking. I guess we TV/internet babies would rather have the spectacle to smirk about and to look down upon than actually to sweep it aside and to fix what's broke. Everyday in everyway things are getting worse.

No more donkeys. No more elephants. We need to replace the donkeys and elephants in government with ordinary people like ourselves. No rocket science, just one radicle, revolutionary foot in front of the other. If we'd started in 1992 we'd be done by now. Living, if not in paradise, at least with something we were willing to take responsibility for.

Water under the bridge. There's no time like the present. Better late than never.

Posted by: jfl | Aug 10 2015 10:48 utc | 72

#72 jfl

she said to me
better late than never
then took my hand
led me down to the river

I said to her
better late than never
then cast my line
into the river

we said together
better late than never
cause fishing
is what keeps us togethet

Posted by: mcohen | Aug 10 2015 12:59 utc | 73

@69&70

It's telling how easily some Liberals revert to reactionary projection when confronted with their own biases. The brave women of BLM are branded as loudmouths, bigots or tools of the opposition but the most ridicules BS I've read is that they are denying the White Moses his freedom of speech. Just as the PTB view all people of color as a problem to be suppressed now white supremacists Liberals are branding young Black women activists as a problem to be attacked and silenced.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Aug 10 2015 14:06 utc | 74

Last year, at nakedcapitalism.com a commenter named 'Banger' and I engaged in a months-long running debate. He believed that neo-feudalism was inevitable and that the only recourse for ordinary people is to rally around oligarchs whose agenda is more friendly to their interests.

I think many see Trump as such a 'friendly' oligarch.

Assuming for a moment that Trump really is "in it to win it", and not as spoiler, are ordinary people's interest best served by electing a 'friendly' oligarch?

I think not. And you can see my arguments by via a Google search on: "site:nakedcapitalism.com jackrabbit banger"

The nature of oligarchs is promote their own interests. They operate in a realm and with a mindset that is fundamentally undemocratic. They are often 'out of touch', having little understanding of the lives of ordinary people. In addition, an oligarch that runs for office is likely to be nothing more than a distraction from movement-building because other oligarchs will see that person as a threat and align against their run. Thus, the can gets kicked as another opportunity for organizing is lost.

What is needed is NOT an oligarch champion (along with the bluster and bravado) but an anti-oligarch 'take-back-our-government' movement that supports progressive taxation and real campaign finance reform. Any such genuine effort will only come from third-parties and grass-roots movements.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 10 2015 14:41 utc | 75

Bernie Sanders for all his high rhetoric is another corporate, pro-immigration and israel uber alles whore. Him and his nasal foghorn of a voice and unkempt old socialist professor's appearance belongs nowhere near the White House. Just the way some of us thought Obama would be nothing like Bush, Sanders will be a continuance of both of those.
I am not or have ever considered myself a Republican, nor am I a hard-left liberal douche with kumbaya delusions.
No one is going to even come close to providing the much-needed stick up the ass of the establishment more than the frank and ingratiating Donald Trump.

Posted by: farflungstar | Aug 10 2015 14:43 utc | 76

Mike Whitney, August 10, 2015

Trump’s got to know what’s coming next. He’s a smart guy and he’s seen this play out many times before. The bottom line, is that if you fu** with these guys, you’re going to wind up “sleeping with the fishes.” It’s that simple. He ought to know that by now.

Posted by: john | Aug 10 2015 14:49 utc | 77

@75 follow-up

Ask yourself: why don't oligarchs (like Trump) support such a third-party movement?

Trump calls the current system 'broken' because politicians are 'puppets'. But the solution he proposes is NOT fundamental change, it is (ostensibly) an oligarch 'strong man'.

Aside: Trump is a renown loud-mouthed, ego-centric self-promoter. No doubt he views his candidacy as a 'win' whether he wins or loses (or serves as a spoiler).

=

Many say, that it is GOOD that Trump is putting the political system in the spotlight - whats not to like? (Oh, and pass the popcorn.)

Firstly, many people ALREADY recognize the problems in our political system. Trump is a piped piper who leads to a dead end. And it is difficult to ignore that the combined effect of the two populists in the race (Trump and Sanders) is generally beneficial to Hillary. Sanders is closely aligned with the Democrats and will NOT challenge Hillary if he is not the Democratic nominee, while Trump has ties to the Clintons that he attempts to belittle and befuddle.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 10 2015 15:07 utc | 78

farflungstar at 76 --

Since when are Wharton B-School educated sons of money active in high-end real estate NOT The Establishment? His uber-greedy wing wants more than the present mega-greedy wing thinks desirable.

Once again Big Money is using the religious/Tea Party GOP as foot soldiers. I can't recall where I saw it today, but I read one commentator saying that Trump is funneling the anger that GOP base feels; they've been promised much but actually gotten comparatively little from the Party, from Reagan on. The creeping restrictions on reproductive freedom are not quite enough it seems.

Jackrabbit at 78 --

I'm with you on this. Trump openly brags about his contempt for the law and others and of his buying politicians wholesale. He's the problem, not the cure.

Will he reverse or accelerate the decline of the American working class? The latter, I should think. What do his serial bankruptcies and layoffs at his casino in Atlantic City say about his business acumen and concern for labor? His brands appeal to "luxury." How does he treat the help?

Wayout at 68 & 74 --

teri at 70 makes a very valid point. Sanders is hardly the biggest problem facing America.

And what would be your source for the calls to have the young ladies tasered? Exactly who, why? I've not seen that. I've not conducted an exhaustive search, but I did come across a couple of relevant items. The intervention was more about the deficiencies of Northwester liberals not-of-color in anti-racist action, and not so much about Sanders himself. The crowd as whole seems to have responded like a crowd that wants to hear the speaker who organized the event, not some hecklers.

I think Ben Cohen at the Daily Banter had the best account.

After forcing Sanders to move away from the podium..., Johnson demanded the crowd become completely silent before telling them they were “white supremacists” and “racists,” [and] lectured them on racial inequality in Seattle.... Not content with their gifted time at an event they had not organized, the duo refused to get off the stage after the silence, demanding Sanders apologize to her and all black people for not doing enough for the movement. Johnson ended their little spectacle by shoving Sanders, a 73 year old man, as he tried to get the microphone back to speak. A saddened Sanders ended up leaving the stage without saying another word to the thousands of people who had turned up to hear him talk.

The unfathomable narcissism displayed by these two ‘agitators’ aside, the net result of disrupting the speech of the most viable progressive candidate in decades was precisely zero. Not only did Johnson and Willaford embarrass themselves, they put the entire #BlackLivesMatter movement in jeopardy by making it about them.

Crooks and Liars had this item, with details from the local Seattle Times with a helpful link to the website.

I'm a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, and whatever you think of the Sanders' campaign and how they should have handled this protest or the group's concerns, I don't think the activists here did the movement any favors with these tactics and the name-calling.

The Seattle Times provides an important bit of data. It quotes Sanders' statement afterwards as saying he was "disappointed that two people disrupted a rally attended by thousands...." He went on to note the obvious: "on criminal-justice reform and the need to fight racism there is no other candidate for president who will fight harder than me."

Their political reporter Jim Brunner provides the important piece of the puzzle: "Activists with the movement have shut down Seattle streets and local events before, arguing such direct action is needed to shake people out of complacency over the deaths of black men and women at the hands of police. In December, they disrupted a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony at Westlake."

I don't get it -- why the small turn-out here? I don't see any accounts of any real agitational work, like supporters leafleting the crowd or doing political street theater. So it seems less like the principled, considered act of a movement and more like a pair of sharp operators trying to grab the spotlight, hoping to top Brittany Newsome's take-down of the Stars and Bars.

Posted by: rufus magister | Aug 11 2015 0:17 utc | 79

@79

The most interesting and telling thing about these incidents has been the reactionary Liberal's, mostly White, mostly male, slurs aimed at these young Black women who are performing radical theatre.

Have you read Bernie's pathetic, pandering, reformist platform plank that is supposed to address racist policing?

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Aug 11 2015 1:45 utc | 80

I fail to see how the GOP hobnobs expect to torpedo Trump's presidential bid by highlighting comments that show him to be a thin-skinned, bad-tempered sexist pig.

Yeah, helllllooooooooooo. There would not be a single person on Planet Earth who isn't aware that Trump is thin-skinned, bad-tempered, or sexist. They've all known that for years, and so it is utterly pointless to complain that he is what everyone knows he is.

Tell them something they don't know, and then - maybe - they'll act all surprised and re-evaluate their opinion of the man.

IMHO the only way the GOP is going to make a dent in Trump's popularity is.... to take him seriously.

Treat him Just Like All The Other Nine Dudes Up On That Podium.
Treat him As If He Really Is Just One More Politician Aiming For The Presidency.

Do that and he'll get judged by *that* criteria, and that's a judgement where he'll inevitably fall short.

But judge him as a clown? As an embarrassment? As a freak?

Heck, he's GOOD at that. That's how he's made his reputation, and so judging him by those criteria actually plays to his strength.

Treat him as nothin' special and that's how he'll be judged.

Because he's a fantastic clown. A terrific embarrassment. A truly world-class freak. But as a politician he's... nothin' special.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Aug 11 2015 1:54 utc | 81

Yeah, Right @81: Great suggestion. The problem is that those kinds of 'serious debates', where each person gets his/her correct % of time to talk, are snoozefests that no one will watch. I wonder who if anyone is making money off the ratings for 'The Donald Runs for President' reality TV show? But even if no one is making money off it, there's something about TV producers and 'talent' that lurches toward stuff that generates high ratings. They're gonna have to discipline themselves.

Posted by: fairleft | Aug 11 2015 2:40 utc | 82

Well, I'm not a supporter of Sanders, so I have not read his platform. But I did see the clip of the two young ladies throwin' it down on Sanders.

Sure it was theater. Was the target appropriate and the treatment suitable? I personally think not (he's got a 97 pct. rating from the NAACP, I read somewhere). Political theater is supposed to gain popular support, not antagonize it. I'm not sure who the performance was supposed to have persuaded, but I don't think it was the well-meaning "pwogwessives" of the "ineffectual left" in the audience.

FYI, BLM themselves seems to have denounced them. I'd give you the link, but you still owe me one for the tasering. And now for the "interesting" slurs, too, by "reactionary white liberals."

What is needed is not improved policing (starting with its demilitarization), desirable though it may be. What is needed is real economic opportunities for the 99 pct., starting with historically disadvantage communities. I live not too far from Camden, and used to pass through it, on public transportation, every day. And my wife works there. So a good part of my knowledge of urban problems comes at first hand.

Posted by: rufus magister | Aug 11 2015 3:19 utc | 83

I'm not sure why anyone cares about this. Ever since I've been on this planet & the evidence suggests that the situation has been around much longer, prolly forever, it has been blindingly obvious that anyone who is allowed to contest the prezdincy of amerika, is by definition unsuitable for thr job.

Imo the job shouldn't exist the notion of one single person at the apex of a pyramid of power is destined to create corrupt and self serving government.

Trump has been judged unsuitable because too many of the elite (it's no surprise that many are not the sharpest pieces of cutlery in the drawer) have erroneously concluded that Trump is as wealthy as he pretends to be.
Their conclusion is that if he is a billionaire he will be difficult to buy since he already has enough of what they can offer.

Trump has operated as the front man for other real estate investors especially big banks who prefer to keep their involvement in some sleazy dealings on the down low.
I'm sure he's copped a pretty good earner along the way but Trump isn't a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet, tho I suspect he has a plan to make himself one.
Those elites who understand that are worried that Trump is gonna be like James 1 of England who took over the English throne in 1603 bringing in his own crew of sleazebags from Edinburgh.
The local London sleazebags discovered James didn't need them as much as he needed them and their sources of funds dried up. This is where the myths about Scots miserliness originate. Jimmy didn't spread the gold round the locals so they began a whispering campaign about him being as tight as a snapper's asshole. Infact it was this decision to ignore southern power brokers that was the real inspiration for the gunpowder plot.
Arguments over the weird & arcane details of superstition are far lower down the ruling elite's priorities than being taken off the money tap is.

All the negativity about Trump is the equivalent of the Clinton's negative run at Oblamblam back in 2008 - forcing the leader to make concessions to leave certain user friendly snouts in the trough.
Trump will either cut a deal or be hit with a tsunami of awful news.

Before the primary is over is my bet.
That's because there will be some 'investors' in the prez who, for whatever reason, just cannot deal with a dem prez- even so those who don't care which half of the "amerika is for us" party, but who believe Trump won't need them, are likely to join the first group to better concentrate the attack.
It is amusing on one level but I am concerned that Trump's scam will be a global rip not just a domestic amerikan burn.
Why steal from a mere 400 million humans when you wield sufficient power to take from all 8 billion of us?

We all know what must happen eventually. There is only one proven way to deal with these parasites - it is fucking aggravating that few of us will still be drawing breath by the time most of our fellow humans recognise the necessity of putting all the 1% up against a wall.
Anything other than a complete root and branch cleanout of these lowlife scum simply puts them into abeyance for a few decades before they rise again and fuck us all once more.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 11 2015 10:12 utc | 84

Here's a snippet from the transcript of Q & A (ABC,net.au) August 10, 2015
The question was about Trump's misogyny...

...
TONY JONES: I just make the point again he’s ten points ahead of the nearest other candidate.

JOSH FRYDENBERG: And they haven't had one primary yet.

SHARON BIRD: Hence my earlier point about popularity.

TONY JONES: And this from a government that doesn't care about polls obviously. Anne Summers?
ANNE SUMMERS: I think it's wrong to write Donald Trump off. I think he is a far more formidable threat to the Republicans than people are perhaps realising
There is no doubt that he is a showman. He’s a very calculated performer and his remarks about Megyn Kelly, I’m sure, were calculated to attract the sort of response that they got.
TONY JONES: So this is calculated misogyny effectively?
ANNE SUMMERS: Absolutely, but I think the point to take away from this is not, you know, Donald Trump, who’s, you know, a mad showman and he’s pursuing a particular political course. He’s the non politician. He’s the person you vote for if you don't want a politician, which is why he is doing so well, which is why he has got 25% of the polls, because all the rest of them are professional politicians and people don't want that anymore. But the point that I take away from this is, you know, the Republicans, as you say, Josh, you know, they repudiated his sexism and misogyny and these are the good guys. Well, I’ve got news for you. I think is it 17 people running for the Republican--
JOSH FRYDENBERG: Sixteen or seventeen, yeah.
ANNE SUMMERS: Sixteen or seventeen. Not one of them supports a right to choose. Not one of them supports women’s right to abortion. In fact they are…

JOSH FRYDENBERG: What about Carly Fiorina?

ANNE SUMMERS: Carly Fiorina, the only woman who is running, Fiorina, she is as rabid as the rest of them. They are competing, they are vying with each other, to see who has the most extreme position on abortion, so much so Marco Rubio, he will deny a woman the chance for an abortion if she’s been raped or the victim of incest. Scott Walker, he will deny a woman an abortion to save her life. You know, the baby's life is more important.
TONY JONES: But couldn’t actually do this, of course, without changing the Supreme Court and having a new ruling?
ANNE SUMMERS: No, they can. They can do all these things under state law and they are doing them in Texas.
TONY JONES: In states, yeah.
ANNE SUMMERS: In certain states. Carly Fiorina, she wants to appeal Roe v Wade, which is - and she also absolutely denies the concept of reproductive rights. Jeb Bush is the one who says that the $500 million which is spent a year on planned parenthood, which is a way of providing health care services for low income women, only 3% of the services are actually on abortion, he says that shouldn’t be - that’s a waste of money. So I think if you look at the Republican line-up, their attitudes to women on that one issue of women controlling their own bodies - God knows what happens when you get to other issues, like economic freedom - they are the most sexist and misogynist people on the block. So they’re the ones I should be worrying about, this particularly if one of them is likely to win.
TONY JONES: Joe Hildebrand?
...
...
JOE HILDEBRAND: The silver lining is that that's right. That means that far right Republican candidates get far more support in the Republican primaries and Donald Trump's support, the 24%, I believe is among registered Republican voters. It’s not among the general population. So the Republicans, if the Democrats get their way, and they’re just sitting back - Hillary is just sitting back smoking a cigar going, "This is great." - they will constantly elect candidates, select candidates that the rest of the country will never ever vote for, so they’re just destroying themselves.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 11 2015 13:04 utc | 85

in re 85

"Long-winded space-wasting ineptitude trumps brief space-wasting ineptitude?" With italics, too.

Posted by: rufus magister | Aug 12 2015 11:44 utc | 86

I have read Sanders' platform, and my tentative conclusion is that on issues that interest me most, he is not different than Hillary. His entire platform on defense and foreign policy consists of chirping of crickets, a spat with voters who criticized support of the last slaughter in Gaza and very quick support for the deal with Iran (did he beat Hillary by a day on that)?

On domestic issues he seems OK, but Hillary is not THAT bad either. The biggest value in having Sanders as a viable candidate is that Hillary may get serious problems before the primaries, say, with her e-mails, and Dems must have Plan B which would be a candidate who had built a large network of supporters.

Trump is a very funny phenomenon. To be a GOP voter you had to accept the phenomenon of "billionaire primary", where all "serious candidates" are tested by a group of billionaires, in the case of foreign policy, the respective group is presided by a casino owner who has international experience by the virtue of owning casinos in many countries. Koch brothers seem to have sway over domestic issues. Additionally, each candidate has to have a group of ultra-rich backers of his own. And here comes an actual casino owner! Why settle for a schmuck who cannot balance his checkbook without a help of rich sugar daddy if you can have a rich sugar daddy himself!

GOP cultivated a mental framework of deference to the super rich who bestow us with jobs due to their talents. More lately, it capitalized on "bomb throwing" style of rhetoric. Lastly, what seems to be unique to this election cycle, right wing billionaires did not manage to resolve whom to support, which created a "circular firing squad" of conventional candidates. So number one is Gov. Bush, with 12-11% support, number two is Dr. Carson, himself a non-conventional candidate, and number three-four are two guys with 6%. So the field consists of an orange guy, a black guy and a bunch of bland guys. What can a perplexed GOP voter choose? With a random choice it gives 1/3 probability of going for the orange guy. From that perspective, Carson is underperforming, but the selection process can be a bit biased to the detriment of black, so it is really the sole orange candidate against a horde of the blands.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 12 2015 14:28 utc | 87

I hope trump wins.

If ever I saw a a group of people that absolutely deserve a President like The Donald, it's the yanks.

The whole lot of em.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people

GO Trump!!

Posted by: blockquote | Aug 14 2015 18:33 utc | 88

Ok maybe Canadians, too.

They already got Harper. But they, like totally, deserve someone like The Donald as their PM

Posted by: blockquote | Aug 14 2015 18:36 utc | 89

The comments to this entry are closed.