An Inconsequential Debate
These two were on some TV show last night? They subsequently had champagne?
From the first reactions I see the show made no difference to the outcome of the U.S. election. Both sides spin that their paymasters won.
My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate.
Would that be good or bad? I don't know. Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters. Nobody seems to know what his real plans would be. With him we all are in for a lot of surprises - likely bad ones.
From a global perspective the election again shows why U.S. global influences must be cut to size. The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots, to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life, their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world. This needs to change.
Such a change requires some cataclysmic events. Both candidates seem well positioned to achieve such.
Posted by b on September 27, 2016 at 5:47 UTC | Permalink
next page »"Both candidates are obviously lying. Clinton proudly knows some very selective facts. Her general plans can be inferred from her political history. They would be mostly bad for this world. Trump doesn't care about facts, nor do most voters."
good argument against democracy.
Posted by: lemur | Sep 27 2016 6:30 utc | 2
Trump started off horribly. He went after Hillary on foreign policy at the end which was pretty decent.. All and all it was cringworthy but entertaining. I think I'll be writing Harambe instead of voting for these 2
Posted by: bbbb | Sep 27 2016 6:33 utc | 3
Trump also kept pimping his business.. He clearly wants to advertise! Both went after each others shadiness. Very fun to watch. I'm not sure if it will amount to much of anything, but I at least enjoyed that she was gotten after for her atrocious policymaking.
Posted by: bbbb | Sep 27 2016 6:39 utc | 4
Missed the 'debate'. In the USA the Amalgamated Republicrat/Demoblican Party controls the debates and limits participation in them to themselves ... the Republicrat and Demoblican candidates. Nothing of substance is allowed to be discussed. Their main function is to convince Americans that these two are the only possible choices to vote for on 8 November.
I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two, ideally that both of these trail the aggregate vote cast for candidates other than themselves. That's the cataclysmic event I'd like to see happen.
Posted by: jfl | Sep 27 2016 6:54 utc | 5
These people and this system depend entirely on power that we the people give them. Spending energy on discussing presidential elections only feeds the established political psycopathy, and energizes the inherently corrupt status quo. I feel that my energy would be better spent reinforcing my local community, where a much higher degree of open democracy manifests. I am not from the US, but the same principle applies here. The only countries I know about that still apply true and open democracy are Iceland and to a lesser degree Costa Rica. In Iceland at least, there is still a very valid reason to vote in the national elections. For the rest of us unfortunate souls I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
Posted by: dan | Sep 27 2016 7:26 utc | 6
The idea that cataclysmic change is necessary for improvement is madness.
A dramatic collapse of the Western economies will likely lead to the evil elite thrusting us into WW3. From which humanity may never recover.
Collapse of the US economy has a good chance of them lashing out with their military to retain their hegemony, also leading to WW3, or a cataclysmic nuclear war.
Any dramatic political change will far more likely lead to the eventual rise of a fascist demagogues across western politics. The way US politics is headed, with Trump and Hitlery.
And if it's not as bad as the next to worst outcomes, then the time lost necessary over the short to midterm of combating climate change, Will mean chronic food and water shortages in the frayed will see humans are reverting to selfish struggle.
Posted by: tom | Sep 27 2016 8:08 utc | 7
@6 dan
Putting your head in a hole in the sand is not going to make your or my national government go away.
Yes, certainly work at the more democratic, more local levels of government. But if we want to stop the wars - I do - we have to (re)gain control of the national government to do so. At least we citizens of the US - author of all war in this century - must do so.
Paying attention to these two is a waste of time. The only way to deal with them, and their endless replacements, is to deal them out of the popular vote. No to Clinton, no to Trump on 8 November ... and every election year thereafter to their elephant and jackass replacements and to those in the House and Senate as well, until we can select a minimalist platform acceptable to us in our majority and replace such candidates from the menagerie with spokespeople chosen from among ourselves.
It's a multiyear program, but that's what it will take, it seems to me. Alternatives welcome. But it does seem to me that change is essential, and that we're the only ones who can bring it about. I'm going to do my part. I hope my 229,000,000 fellows will too.
Posted by: jfl | Sep 27 2016 8:25 utc | 9
[email protected] - You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? That's hard to believe. She fully intends to finish the annihilation of the Shia crescent from one end to the other for her Israeli/Saudi masters. The U.S. will be at war with Iran within a year if she is elected (and I regretfully but sincerely expect both to happen). Drinking the blood of live infants is only going to keep her corpse alive for - what - maybe a year or two? She is going to hit the ground running, and will not be satisfied until the Iranian death toll cracks two million. She came, she saw, they died [cackle, cackle!].
If Trump wins, he too will eventually be convinced to start a war with them at the behest of his Israeli/Saudi/CIA handlers, but I expect that 'project' to take years before he's confident enough to commit to it. The U.S. might be gone by then. You would think Iranians would be a little more inclined to go with him in the interests of a few more years of Iranian self-preservation.
Since the on-line fantasy election is in English and only 31 Iranians have voted so far, it's probably too early to tell. I'm thinking they are not representative of the other 78 million Iranians, but who really knows?
Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 27 2016 8:51 utc | 10
dan | Sep 27, 2016 3:26:58 AM | 6
Indeed, left port a decade ago.
Posted by me @ Ian Welsh's;
Didn’t watch any of “it” (not a debate).
With all that’s going on in the world today, militarily, I’m somewhat convinced that if Clinton wins office (not an election); 2017 will make the last 15 years seem peaceful.
My only question is; will it go nuclear? Given the insane development of small nukes, stupidly called tactical, too many have themselves convinced there is justification for their use.
Us humans are not the brightest bulbs in the known universe; I’ve removed optimistic/optimism from my vocabulary.
In my definition of intelligence; humans are not even in the top 100…
That's my view at this time; voting is a very bad joke.
Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 27 2016 8:56 utc | 11
[email protected]
OK, I hear you. There are many ways to skin a cat. I loved reading about Ghandis civil disobedience movement, too. But one problem with any "movement" is the inherent fact that it takes a lot of people to function well together over a sustained period of time, which in my experience never seems to work out. However, civil disobedience on an individual level is much easier to achieve. For example, I do not believe in paying personal income tax, so I simply don't. I like green milk so I have a cow. I despise the big petroleum companies, so I use alternative fuels. You get my drift. Its easier for me to contribute in my own small way than to get caught up in any kind of "movement". And I see it all around me. I don't think I know a single person who would join the military unless it was a case of desperate defence. The new generation around me all seem involved in some sort of civil disobedience, its happening naturally.
Dunno.I live in a small world, where it seems to be working.
Posted by: dan | Sep 27 2016 8:57 utc | 12
A friend of mine (who had no dog in the fight) said after watching a Corbyn / Smith debate that Smith made Corbyn "look Presidential which, unfortunately, neither of the US candidates do".
I listened to some of Hill's vs Trump, he was absolutely right.
PavewayIV says:
You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton?
yeah, that one threw me for a loop as well, but as you pointed out, 17 or so votes for Clinton out of 79 million Iranians is pretty much meaningless. probably just a cluster of 'progressive' exchange students.
Posted by: john | Sep 27 2016 10:12 utc | 15
jfl says:
It's a multiyear program,...
blah, blah, blah
All members of the fake left advocate that the system must be changed progressively from within and that a collapse would be mainly a disaster for the poor and weak. This notion is as valid as to claim that a building destroyed by an earthquake is in need of some fresh window dressing. Regardless of the global elite’s arrogance, a systemic collapse is on its way and will exponentially take hold of the planet within two or three decades. The super-rich will eventually have nowhere to run or hide, and no private armies to protect them from the wrath of nature. Forcefully resisting the brand of globalization imposed on us by the thugs and slave drivers of disaster capitalism is a moral obligation all world citizens should embrace. When people in power live in the castle of their own lies, it is time to dismantle the fortress. When governance has lost all moral ground and reason, it is time to call for a revolution (Gilbert Mercier)
so vote however the fuck you want, but please spare us your tedious proselytizing.
Posted by: john | Sep 27 2016 10:29 utc | 16
Cataclysmic event will be bad, obviously. But it will come, whatever we do. The point in wishing and provoking a cataclysmic event right now is that if the system collapses now, it will eventually be a tiny bit less damaging than if things go on as they do until they hit the wall.
If the system is left to its own devices, it will cause cataclysmic collapse, with high risk of fully wiping out mankind. Having a pre-emptive cataclysm will of course destroy, hurt and kill most, but might allow survival and rebuilding - if it happens soon enough. That's the whole point of it.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Sep 27 2016 10:51 utc | 17
See what comes of it but as Trump said, he makes deals. Perhaps he has been offered a good deal?
Posted by: Peter AU | Sep 27 2016 11:08 utc | 18
Dan's point in 12 is an excellent one. The foundational myths of the United States are becoming less and less credible by the day. As more people stop believing them and, even more importantly, realize that others do not believe them either, compliance in the system becomes less and less. People do not even need to think in terms of self sacrifice for some greater good, or in terms of being part of a revolution. They actually only have to realize that their own best interests are served better by non compliance than compliance.
One early example is the housing crisis back in 2008. People simply stopped paying their mortgages while continuing to live in the houses. Banks were able to force a bailout, but that only encouraged more people to feel justified in defaulting. Ignore your debts to credit card companies, banks, etc and you are striking a serious blow against the system. While actually freeing yourself.
That is just one more example of resistance. Dan mentioned many others. The system's best weapon is that they got most people to believe in it, which encourages semi voluntary obedience.
Posted by: Lysander | Sep 27 2016 11:17 utc | 19
Re: Posted by: jfl | Sep 27, 2016 2:54:02 AM | 5
I hope that more of us than ever before choose a candidate other than one of these two
In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992. A hard hurdle to beat I reckon, and frankly I can't see it happening.
What is Aleppo anyway?
#7
Wrong, catalysmic collapse is what lies in stall for the US and probably Europe but it's not annihilation.
Just that they got no money for hegemony anymore but they are still alive. And they still chose to remain alive just like in the Soviet Union.
They won't be games to change their plans. And those who want to go for suicide, they are easily handled. The numbers are few. According to Tom Friedman, to stop the Iraq war, one only had to kill 25 individuals in the US.
Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Sep 27 2016 11:48 utc | 21
The whole debate was unreal.
Trump was bragging about his business successes with a sad grim while Hillary with a forever ironic botoxed smile and an empty look in her eyes looked like a worn out robot.
It was more a scene from the Muppets show than a presidential debate!
Posted by: virgile | Sep 27 2016 12:00 utc | 23
I like Trump because he is hated by all the right people.
Posted by: Secret Agent | Sep 27 2016 12:06 utc | 24
This was almost a replay of 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate. Clinton played to the TV audience much better than Trump. Trump's scowl, fast talking, interjections, and water-drinking compared to Hillary's smiles and verbal pacing.
And I didn't see any sign of Hillary's supposed illness. If you listen to those that push that line, she should've keeled over or 'frozen' during the debate.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 27 2016 13:00 utc | 25
Note: The first Nixon-Kennedy televised debate was held on September 26 also.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 27 2016 13:01 utc | 26
At least, there was no slavering competition over who can give Netanyahu the most satisfying blow job. I expected that to have occurred.
Something is up.
By this, I mean that the PTB are perhaps seeing that ppl are catching on I/P MENA issues. Not a deep understanding, for sure, but ppl aren't enjoying endless war, they're getting weary and quite bored with the GWOT and they aren't liking "their money" ($35B last week) being sent to Israel.
With Nutanyahu having visited the two assholes the day before, one might expect that he (& Israel) would have been discussed in some detail.
While it seemed chaotic and disjointed, the questions and topics were by design, tightly controlled and superficial. Lots of playing "gotcha" aimed at Trump.
I don't think ppl give a rat's ass about Oilybomber's BC, anymore, but how they chewed up the clock with that BS.
(For real: Obama was spawned in a test tube by the CIA.)
Posted by: fastfreddy | Sep 27 2016 13:02 utc | 27
Trump is Trump. He is what you expect him to be. He is a pig, but he is comfortable in his own skin.
Hillary offers all the warmth and charm of Richard Nixon.
Like the Nixon/JFK debate minus a sweating Hillary.
Can't sweat with ice water in your veins.
Posted by: fastfreddy | Sep 27 2016 13:08 utc | 28
Didn't watch,as I never in my life have watched these stupid events,as I know whom I'm voting for,DT,as the other person? is the queen of chaos and destruction,but remember Adlai Stevenson was an articulate and intelligent candidate who was beaten badly by a much less wonky IKE twice,in landslides,so its obvious the American people are motivated by something other than brainpower or intellectual heft,in electoral success.
I notice all the usual suspects are crowing the Hell Bitch won,but Counterpunch,a much more neutral and non partisan(hates both)said at worst a draw for Trump,and I noticed he rejected first strike nuclear attacks,a very sane position,thank you,and again nothing in the US MM(or hidden)about the Turk killing Americans,which of course feeds Trump.
The MSM blows.
Posted by: dahoit | Sep 27 2016 13:10 utc | 29
"The fate of the world should not be left in the hands of some Intellectuals but Idiots, to people who can not see beyond their noses, to "thinkers" for whom human history starts with their high school prom. Their linear analysis, their inexperience with real life, their linear solutions are inadequate for our complex, non-linear world." - well said! Yes!
Oh, and as regards another commenter: yes Nixon was hardly the warmest and cuddliest American president, but if we could bring him back to life I'd take Nixon over Trump or Hillary in a heartbeat. At least he wasn't an insane warmonger. At least he had some consideration for the national interest. I miss him.
Posted by: TG | Sep 27 2016 13:17 utc | 30
the theater of cruelty meets the theater of the absurd. it's like they were spouting random bits of Beckett while performing on each other scenes from Ridley Scott's dreadful "Hannibal."
Posted by: jason | Sep 27 2016 13:22 utc | 31
Didn't watch the show, can't afford TV or cable. Don't give a shit either candidate.
Will vote for to Jill Stein.
Posted by: Jack Smith | Sep 27 2016 13:25 utc | 32
I caught the news which mostly hyped the debate, a couple of show reruns via the internet, and when the debate started I caught the first 15 minutes of that. When I noticed it was a couple of bickering animals, I recalled that I had borrowed the DVD of The Jungle Book remake and watched that for the second time. Hillary reminds me of Kaa the snake and I guess Trump could be Louie (the remake versions).
Posted by: Curtis | Sep 27 2016 13:26 utc | 33
Who won the debate? We know Israel didn't lose. Both went before AIPAC to give their oath of fealty and this past weekend met with the leader himself.
Posted by: Curtis | Sep 27 2016 13:28 utc | 34
how much power does POTUS really have? maybe we get too worked up about this stuff. they will both get shown the real Zapruder film upon entering the ovoid office (well, HRC's probably seen that one, a couple of times, which is why the FP establishment adores her), get some marching orders, get some wiggle room on some things, and go out & perform their song & dance like a holiday greeter at the National Wal-Mart. maybe that POTUS is "the decider" w/his (so far) fingers on the nukular trigger is a big performance for us rubes in the cheap seats? w/the intel services getting the dirt on *everyone*, but esp. politicos, every single person "inside the beltway" is subject to blackmail. w/o exception.
Posted by: jason | Sep 27 2016 13:28 utc | 35
Our choose-one voting system has always been a disaster because of the spoiler effect. Because, for example, if you gave your vote to Nader that might have caused Bush to beat Gore (not that Gore would necessarily have been any better). But we are stuck with this miserable system because of a surprisingly large array of people who I call the "election methods cognoscenti". Over many years, these cognoscenti have assembled an enormous collection of distracting, unworkable election methods. This "intellectual subject" has, for instance, consumed perhaps hundreds of pages in works such as the Wikipedia. These cognoscenti have created a gigantic Glass Bead Game which serves no real purpose other than to facilitate intellectual speculation. In nearly every instance where their election methods have been employed, disaster has ensued, although in a few cases, their systems have languished on, providing no better results than the choose-one voting system. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, have been spent promoting "the "IRV" method, which has been tried and abandoned in several venues where it caused massive chaos. As the 2016 elections are now six weeks away, I have yet to hear any of these election methods cognoscenti give any consideration to the fact that where their methods contain any flaws, those flaws will be ruthlessly exploited by a massive corporate regime. They appear to fail to understand that elections are not contests between political candidates, nor contests between various ideological cohorts. Elections are always contests between the common people and some form of massive corporate regime.
There is one method, which must have been anciently known by someone, that certainly would perform very nicely, and not cause chaos or merely serve as a basis of intellectual speculation. I think I described it here before, but since it involves such an important issue I will give it again:
/~~~~~~~~~~
I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, six candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
There is no point in casting "zero" to four votes since that would be useless for thwarting the blind hurdle dilemma, and would only make hand counting more tedious. The maximum is ten since that enables voters to easily assess the percentage of votes they are casting. Limiting votes to no more than six candidates prevents people from "hogging" voting booths by casting votes for large numbers of candidates.
Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.
\~~~~~~~~~~
This solution to the duopoly (two-part system) inducing spoiler effect and blind hurdle dilemma is so simple and obvious that one might wonder if some sort of odd conspiracy might be involved.
Posted by: blues | Sep 27 2016 13:38 utc | 36
A son (senior at university) had earlier decided to vote for Johnson, now say's a pox on ALL of 'em. He texted me during the debate that he'd never EVER vote for Clinton. And whilst he agrees with Trump about the Saudi's ("they're terrible people") he totally disagrees about Iran ("Persians created the first real empire with religious tolerance and infrastructure"). He doesn't believe in the BS of blaming Islam for terrorism, per se. But he totally believes wahhabism is evil. I told him no one on that stage would or could save him. It's up to him to make good choices. And live with the consequences.
Didn't watch the debate. Didn't need to. Nor want to. I'll vote for Trump. Cuz FU Deep State. And that's a choice I can live with...
Posted by: Take Me | Sep 27 2016 13:38 utc | 37
Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 27, 2016 4:51:42 AM | 10
Well, Trump made it clear that he thinks the Iran deal a bad deal and he quoted Netanyahu as witness.
This here is Press Tv's, presumably the official Iranian take:
Adelson would have untold influence on Trump: Ex-US senator
Posted by: somebody | Sep 27 2016 13:48 utc | 38
By my not giving a fiddlers fart about either of these two incompetents as far as becoming POTUS, I will venture that this is the slickest piece of Madison Avenue campaign marketing yet. This offering of two of the lowest quality candidates for each mainstream party of the Singularity is only matched by the plutocrats ability to arouse the public to pick between a proven evil person and one as yet not openly proven to be exceptionally evil. Both are controlled and controllable by the plutocracy or they would not be in the running. Let that sink in before you go back to cheering and jeering for those who will beyond a shadow of doubt carry out whatever policy is mandated by their controllers who are the western Apex Elites, who own the debt as money institutionalized system of fraud and looting, and think they know best as how humanity should be ordered. These elites desire ever expanding wealth and control over everything at any cost to others lives or life support systems. Now get out there and continue to give support and legitimacy to this hologram of republican democracy these very same Apex Elites have spent so much of the money they have taken from your labors to erect and carry out this bumper sticker pantomime that you have not the ability to discern, but please don't start crying foul when the Elites agent is proven to be a lying SOB. At this point I usually quote FDR's letter to Col. House about government being 'owned'... Over and out....may God have mercy etc....
Anyone who even considers voting for those two puppets is an idiot.
We have a nation of idiots here in the US and we are told to be proud of it.
Those who disagree die from starvation being fired by idiot bosses.
Ain't America great? Ask an idiot.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 27 2016 14:21 utc | 40
Back, and to the left
Back, and to the left
Bill Hicks knew...
Posted by: dan | Sep 27 2016 14:29 utc | 41
Posted by: Take Me | Sep 27, 2016 9:38:55 AM | 37
"he totally disagrees about Iran ("Persians created the first real empire with religious tolerance and infrastructure")"
That was a long long time again and they weren't muslim then.
Now they are the shiite version of the goons in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Sep 27 2016 14:34 utc | 42
To 41: Really. Then what are we? Other than warmongers. And ZIO-thugs.
I don't tell my kids how to think. They SEE what they SEE. And meme-pushers beware of the backlash. It's coming.
Posted by: Take Me | Sep 27 2016 15:02 utc | 43
@20 jules 'In recent history 19.6% of Americans voted for neither Clinton nor Bush in 1992.'
Yeah, I was one of 'em. I remember those days. Washington seemed on top of the world. The sucking sound from 'the south' was heard by some few but not yet felt by the many. In the intervening quarter century the bottom has fallen out of the real economy and peace is a quaint memory shared by increasingly fewer people. A whole generation has grown up at war. Wikipedia ...
elephant 37.4%
jackass 43.0%
Perot 18.9%
other Perot + 0.7%
Nobody remembers Perot's name now, yet he was the 'personality' who drove the other vote then. A classic 3rd Party candidate, a three-way 'race'. There is no driving personality now, no real alternative candidate. It's pure revulsion with the menagerie and the system that will drive the other vote this year, although I imagine Stein and Johnson each do have a kernel of devoted followers.
I won't be surprised if other is right up there with the 'winner' this year. I will be disappointed, if not surprised, if other fails to beat Perot's total. Yet I argue that while Perot had a following, people voting for him, most of the others this year are rejecting the terrible twins, and that they will not walk away - my candidate lost, oh well - as Perot's followers did in 1992 - they thought they could win - but will stay, milling about, having had no hope of 'winning', making plans for next year and the year after. We others will know there's no one here but ourselves to effect the change that's gotta come, and that its going to take concerted effort over a number of years to carry it off.
Or we won't ... things will continue as they are, and our plane will be flown into the ground. The general skepticism and outright hostility to my suggestion here makes me think that the latter is as strong a possibility as the former.
Of course a great awakening might occur entirely independent of this election. I'll take it and be overjoyed if it comes! Not holding my breath on that possibility however. Not holding my breath at all. In fact, at 69, I'm probably nearer my personal expiration, than further inspiration ... the great exhale. Would be lovely to let go with things on the way up, though. I'll take what aspiration I can find, wherever I can find it. I probably have a good twenty years left! Social Security says 15.
Posted by: jfl | Sep 27 2016 15:07 utc | 44
If,as some say, Hillary was about to be dumped by the Deep State, I would say that she earned a second chance with them after her performance last night.
Posted by: Morongobill | Sep 27 2016 15:12 utc | 45
But what is the harm of pointing out what they miss?
The shiite version is almost just as awful as the one sunni.
"Then what are we? Other than warmongers. And ZIO-thugs."
The US has become economically dependent on war.
Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Sep 27 2016 15:21 utc | 46
Also, Take Me, start reducing your identification as an American. You were born there, have citizen papers of the country but don't be identify as an American.
You were using the word we.
Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Sep 27 2016 15:25 utc | 47
I didn't watch, as I can no longer bear witness to such displays of bullshit hype and spin. I loathe both candidates with the burning of a 1000 white hot suns. That said, I fail to see how so-called "outsider" Trump is somehow "better" than Clinton. They are both, imo, pretty equally corrupt. It's just that Trump is corrupt in the private sphere, while the Clintons are corrupt in the public/govt sphere. In the USA, these days, how big of a difference is that? Just wondering.
Trump is posited as the "outsider" candidate who'll somehow - magically - go to DC and do all of these "things." What things that is eludes me. Trump has proposed several Tax Plans, all of which are giant give-aways to himself and his labyrinth of businesses. So, eh? We get corrupt private sector Trump transferring his corruption to the public sphere and hoovering up as much US taxpayer dollars as possible. Riddle me again the big fat difference between Trump and Clinton in terms of corruption??
Vis Deep State: whichever candidate wins, s/he will bow down to Deep State. Bank on it. "Outsider" Trump will have no leverage there. The end. So which candidate is it that will somehow smash down that barrier? I haz confused.
Vis Unending War? I quite agree that Clinton is a War Hawk's War Hawk, and we can look forward to endless war with her in charge. Yeah yeah, Trump has said a few good things about the costs of War and how this and that and the other war were wrong and money-losers blah de blah. To quote that dick, Cheney: SO?? Do you honestly believe that should Trump win we won't be quagmired into yet more and more endless wars? C'mon. You guys here are the top of line. Let's get real.
And finally, as noted already, both Trump and Clinton were commanded to go kiss Netanyahu's ring and heiney before this debate. There was fan fare in the media about it. That was no accident. Any day dreams that AIPAC and Israel won't be the tail wagging Trump's doggy is fooling themselves. Geez, I'd LOVE it to be different, but it ain't.
I voted for the Sanders in the primary figuring that he'd "lose" somehow. That said, while I think Sanders is probably one of the more decent people in the US Senate, he'd have been run by AIPAC all the same. And he's not exactly a dove.
We're fucked, frankly. I don't think it really matters who we vote for. I loathe Trump for being the candidate of the KKK, though. That's just me, but it means something to me, and I don't like it. I cannot countenance that. It's a bridge too far for me.
Yeah, we can vote third party. I'm toying with that notion, as I've done it before. I think it's an exercise in futility other than one can "feel better" or something.
Good luck to us all.
Posted by: RUKidding | Sep 27 2016 15:42 utc | 48
My hunch is still that this election will come down to a deeply felt "not-Clinton" attitude in the general U.S. electorate.
If this were a normal election, Hillary would lose, because Hillary is the candidate of the incumbent party, and the incumbent party has not performed well enough for voters to want to reelect it. Thus, what the establishment needs to do to make Hillary win is to convince voters that this is not a normal election, because Trump is beyond the pale. The NY Times in fact used this very argument in its endorsement of Hillary.
But Trump did not come across as beyond the pale in this debate. Thus, he took away the narrative that the public needs to believe in order not to do what it would usually do – vote out the incumbent party when it is unhappy with the status quo.
That the pundits are debating the debate, showing why Hillary won, just as if this were any other presidential debate and election, is a strategic victory for Trump.
Haven't rrally be paying much attention to 'the greatest show on earth', the election show, but watched last night's debate.
Have to say I was struck by a) how rehearsed, insincere and crowd-pleasing Clinton was; b) how much trouble Trump seemed to have articulating some very valid points.
In fairness, Trump made some very valid points re. debt and taxation but didn't hit them home. He had the opportunity to really wipe the floor with Clinton, but he didn't, why not?
If I were a part of the US electorate I would enjoy the show and ignore it. There's little of worth to be gained from such public cock-fighting except maybe the illusion that democracy is working before your very eyes ..!
Posted by: AtaBrit | Sep 27 2016 15:56 utc | 50
jfl says:
The general skepticism and outright hostility to my suggestion here makes me think that the latter is as strong a possibility as the former
your 'suggestion here' has been repeated to a ridiculous degree. ad nauseum, as they say. overbearing. domineering. into the realm of browbeating. it's just fucking annoying!
hey, don't you live in Thailand? why not head up to your friendly Hmong village for a few long pulls on the old bamboo.
Posted by: john | Sep 27 2016 16:06 utc | 51
@Take Me #37:
whilst he agrees with Trump about the Saudi's ("they're terrible people") he totally disagrees about Iran ("Persians created the first real empire with religious tolerance and infrastructure"). He doesn't believe in the BS of blaming Islam for terrorism, per se. But he totally believes wahhabism is evil. I told him no one on that stage would or could save him.
Well yes, Trump's attacks on Iran are completely misplaced. And so is his advocacy of Reaganite trickle-down economics. But the context of this election is that the US is losing its status as world hegemon, the "sole superpower". The US is presently losing its war with Russia, on the Syrian front. Hillary repeatedly attacked Russia and PUTIN PUTIN PUTIN in this debate. That didn't ruffle Trump one bit. And he said twice that we don't know who hacked those emails.
For me, what this election is about is whether the US is going to make one last brave effort to maintain its position of world hegemon, or whether it will adjust to the new reality. That Trump didn't reflexively show that he can bash Russia too when Hillary bashed it – as any other Ami politician would have done – shows that he is comfortable with the latter.
@AtaBrit #49:
Trump made some very valid points re. debt and taxation but didn't hit them home. He had the opportunity to really wipe the floor with Clinton, but he didn't, why not?
Women are half of the electorate. An establishment meme in this election has been that Trump is toxic to women. So what he needed to show female voters, when he and Hillary were interacting publicly for the first time in this election, is that he is not an asshole, and that he wouldn't especially bother them if they had to have dealings with him every day at work.
Liberal pundits are saying that "Hillary totally dominated" the debate. That shows women that Trump is not uncomfortable with treating women as equals. Thus, this is the second narrative that the establishment has been using against Trump that he disabled with this debate.
I have to say I only watched the first part. In my opinion, Trump was doing his best to throw it to Clinton, but maybe he's that way all the time. I very much doubt he would be any better than she, because to me he's just as big a supporter of the money power behind the throne - he wants lower taxes on corporations and less regulation???? Neither he nor she - I cringe at either one.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 27 2016 16:27 utc | 54
Jackrabbit @25
"And I didn't see any sign of Hillary's supposed illness"
Her right eye was not in sync with her left eye. It wandered independent of what the left eye was doing. Especially in the 1st half hour of the media circus event. Parkinson's as a result of heavy coke use in her youth? Watch the video. Kind of frightening that a person in her medical condition is running for President.
'The Donald' made snorting sounds several times during the first 15 minutes of the theatrical event. A reference to coke use?
Best quote I read today. Empty suit vs. empty pantsuit.
Watching these NYC backed clowns was a very, very frightening experience. 45 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Just me opinion
Posted by: ALberto | Sep 27 2016 16:28 utc | 55
@juliania #53:
I have to say I only watched the first part. In my opinion, Trump was doing his best to throw it to Clinton…
I missed the first part, so you could be right. Of course, I can only speculate about how Trump comes across to women. But I do think that he was consciously trying to act non-threatening. At the very end of the debate, he actually said that he had wanted to say something pretty mean about Hillary (or the Clintons?) but then decided at the last minute not to because that wouldn't be nice, basically. And then he said that the Clinton campaign hurts his feelings with their attack ads on him LOL.
My argument for Trump is very simple, and lots of people make it. Obama was Bush's 3rd and 4th terms, with identity politics added. Hillary would be a third Obama turn, which would mean a 5th Bush term.
The neocons need to be kicked out of Washington. Trump would do that. Yes, all his economic proposals are rubbish. But he can't really do much harm economically, because Dems could block his proposals; that would give them a chance to act like Dems for a change. Hillary, in contrast, could start a nuclear war with Russia. I don't see her backing off on Syria.
Check out Hillary Clinton's eyes at 13:25 to 13:55. Her eyes are operating independently of one other. Can this be a good thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHPrYUcoi0
Posted by: ALberto | Sep 27 2016 17:02 utc | 57
Your wrong on Trump. A lot of new reports show Trump's going to win in the electoral college, even from the hated Huffington Post. Trump is a brilliantly successful man with powerful ideas about how to stop inhumane foreign wars (such as the brutal invasion of Libya so adored by Hillary Clinton, along with her pet project---the barbaric murder of secular leader Gaddafi who had made Libya the richest country in Africa and provided women with higher education); how to make all immigrants legal and therefore accepted, peaceful and helpful to America; how to slash bad trade deals, taxes and regulations to make the US a great opportunity for business and thus create jobs; AND ... how to be friends---yes, friends!---with Russia, a civilzed Christian nation that has shown no aggression since the fall of the Soviet Union, despite mainstream media propaganda that purports Russia invaded Ukraine, a story designed cover up the fact that Russia not only never invaded, but that it was the United States that destabilized Ukraine via the Maidan coup sponsored by the CIA. GO TRUMP!
-- I was deplorable before it was cool.
Posted by: Karl Pomeroy | Sep 27 2016 17:19 utc | 58
Since I'll vote for Stein, I didn't bother to watch. However, I did read Pepe Escobar's recap, which was enlightening as usual, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160927/1045757443/us-clinton-trump-debate.html
IMO, the most important item he noted: "It went virtually unnoticed. But Trump, in one sentence, actually may have ruled out WWII [sic] if he becomes President; “I would certainly not do first-strike” – as in the official US doctrine, reiterated by Obama, that guarantees a US first nuclear strike. Secretary Clinton did not comment."
Pepe's assessment of NATO relative to Trump's remarks about the organization was also pure gold:
"On NATO, Trump said the Atlanticist monolith must engage in direct counterterrorism operations in the Middle East. NATO actually has a Defense Against Terrorism program for 12 years now. The problem is the priorities are regime change – from Libya to Syria; keeping the heroin flowing from Afghanistan; and not giving a damn about “moderate rebels”."
Bottomline is my assessment on who constitutes the Greater Evil remains the same--HRC by a mile. But as I said up top, Stein has already earned my vote, although Trump would be second.
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 27 2016 17:22 utc | 59
As someone outside all of this except for the likelihood of nuclear war it is interesting to see how everyone including b seem to short circuit into some extremely strong preconceptions, biases, and perhaps also outright bigotry.
I gather just about everyone here knows exactly what they're likely to end up with if Clinton wins.
On that merit alone Clinton must lose otherwise you do not truly believe what you yourself not only ought to know but state as correct fact.
So maybe Trump will turn out to be just as bad despite everything indicating that he's nowhere close to it but because that does not fit into your existing view of the world you will choose to ensure the Clinton result?
As someone already pointed out: that is madness.
Whatever you do please vote no to "neutron storms", I don't care if you have to wear a gas mask to do it. Don't make this the last US presidential election ever. Don't give up, don't kill the world, figuratively we as humanity haven't even learnt to walk yet.
You finally have a chance to vote for someone who not only thinks the current situation is extremely bad and wants to change it but who also has a chance to win. Someone who is not an ideologue. Someone who is not a slave to dogma. Someone who could personally easily make the mistake of thinking he and his would be far better off not giving a flying f and scurry away to New Zealand or wherever the rich think they can hide. Someone who is not a politician. Someone who has run on his own money and ordinary donations. Someone who likes to build and create. Someone who is not keen on war. But you shy away because he's not "one of yours/ours" or superficially being "everything you hate" or trampling all over some strong conviction or the other?
That's a solid knockout by boomerang :C
If you're a nihilist you need a break, consider where humanity could be given another thousand years of survival. If you don't get the point then have a look at where we were a thousand years ago, two thousand years ago, and three thousand years ago. And if you think humanity was better at those points in time then I am sorry for you as you're nothing but self-righteous fakes living in complete fantasy.
Posted by: Outsider | Sep 27 2016 17:26 utc | 60
Thanks for responding. Because it is the corporate industrial complex that has power and ultimately makes the decisions, those opening remarks by Trump (I know very little about him really) stunned me. To give him the benefit of the doubt, in the Kennedy/Nixon debates Kennedy sounded as hawkish as they come, yet in my opinion, given all his shortcomings, he was the best president at promoting peace in fragile times we ever had, at least in my lifetime.
I will however join karlof in voting for Jill Stein. Silly me, I vote my conscience. It is a great travesty she has not been given a seat on the stage. She did attempt to be there, and at least they didn't lock her up this time. But she was escorted off the premises, a very black mark for American democracy.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 27 2016 17:35 utc | 61
Again silly me - should have said 'military industrial complex' of course.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 27 2016 17:41 utc | 62
@ALberto #56:
Check out Hillary Clinton's eyes at 13:25 to 13:55. Her eyes are operating independently of one other.
Here's some context for that:
That clears up the mystery about whether a pen-like object a man walking next to Hillary was holding was a themazepam injector. The guess now is that it is a laser pen, used to provide stimulation for Hillary so that she doesn't freeze up while walking.
As for the eye movement, a point that Dr. Ted Noel makes in the second video at that link is that this is a new symptom, which means that her condition is getting worse.
As for the misogynist brute meme, the liberal media want to preserve that, claiming that it came out in the debate:
I didn't watch either and like a few others here will be voting Green.
" Silly me, I vote my conscience"
Yes, juliania
Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 27 2016 17:51 utc | 64
A month ago I said something here like "Not voting for Trump is voting for Hillary, and hence, for nuclear war." But the tide seems to be turning, so I think it's OK to vote your conscience now. :-)
Also, the Chomsky rule still applies of course, that you should vote third party unless you're in a swing state. (Chomsky is somehow inexplicably mistaken about whom to vote for in this election if you are in a swing state. I guess for some ethnic groups, the lesser evil is always the Democrat.)
The 2016 Presidential Election Comes Down to Only One Thing…
As we inch closer and closer to November 8th, one thing has become increasingly clear to me. This election will be viewed by voters as a referendum on the status quo’s itself. While it’ll definitely be a referendum on Obama specifically, it’s much bigger than that. It’ll be about whether the American people want to continue along the path we’ve been on for decades, or if they’re willing to try something entirely different.Indeed, Hillary Clinton clearly highlighted the choice herself earlier today with the following tweet:
Not a single living president has endorsed Donald Trump.
To 46 + 47: Explain the disparity between shiite, sunni, wahhabi and talmudic judiasm. Cuz this lil tar-baby protestant can't see a spits worth of difference from a "treat ones neighbor as oneself" perspective. Frankly. I'm weary of religion. And don't particularly care what others believe. As long as they don't drag my ass into their bullshit. Cuz I worship at the church of "good fences make good neighbors". Build 'em high is my motto.
Finally. I employed the word "we" cuz Americans who try to claim innocence for the crimes perpetrated by this county in OUR name are beneath contempt. I have many vices. But dishonest, cowardly and carpetbagger are not among them. Warmongering happened on OUR watch. It's on US. WE the people. So FUCK ME. And FUCK THEM. Amen.
Posted by: Take Me | Sep 27 2016 19:29 utc | 67
jfl 44. Me, too. I voted Perot. It was the first time I cared to vote. (also voted with rest of county to remove a worthless lying commissioner). It's odd how his 20% didn't get much affect or change of the country. But he was right that the US should not keep digging a deeper hole of debt.
Posted by: Curtis | Sep 27 2016 20:47 utc | 68
After voting for Perot, I was told by GOPers that this caused Clinton to win. I never could kill that logic as if I would have voted for the first King Shrub.
Posted by: Curtis | Sep 27 2016 20:49 utc | 69
I don't know how consequential last night's debate will be on November's outcome. After all, there's two more.
But Hillary won the debate and there's no spin that can change that. I'm not saying that's a good thing but it's a fucking fact.
If you want to look at this election through a prism of what takes place in foreign affairs then you're not on the same page as the people who get to vote. If they are uninformed and distracted by more domestic issues then what you gonna do? If you do have a vote, then deal with the fact that you were fucked before you left the house.
You can't make honey out of dog shit.
Posted by: peter | Sep 27 2016 21:18 utc | 70
@ peter 70
I ‘m not a circus fan so I’m reading the reviews.
FWIW: Michael Moore – same guy who a couple months ago stated 5 reasons Trump will win - said Trump "won" the debate and we lost/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/michael-moore-says-trump-won-the-debate/
“The 62-year-old filmmaker warned “pro-Hillary gloaters” against celebrating over how Hillary Clinton did in the debate against the Republican nominee and insisted nothing she did changed things.
“Pro-Hillary gloaters doing end-zone dance again when still on 50-yd line,” Moore tweeted. “You must get it in your head Trump is gonna win and act accordingly!”
~ ~ ~ ~
Trump or hILLARY, same old, same old. Israel firsters. Trump has committed to Bibi that under a Trump admin, Jerusalem will be recognized the capital of Israel. The Palestinians be damned.
Ignore the polls. Yard signs are a more accurate indicator. The polls have placed NE deep blue states in hILLary’s column. I have driven for miles, including Sanders' home state. Not ONE sign for hILLARY. Not a one. Trump-Pence abounds. It will be Trump by a landslide.
MSM will have not just egg on face.
Posted by: likklemore | Sep 27 2016 21:37 utc | 71
There are two people writing in to this blog using the name "Outsider". No doubt about that because I'm one of them and I certainly didn't write comment 60 above. I comment infrequently and don't of course mind who uses the name as long as both of us don't.
Could the other "Outsider" tell me whether he wants to keep to that name in which case, should I comment again, I'll use another one.
Hope that sorts it out. Always nice in any case to come across someone whose name indicates he feels the same way about politics as I do.
Outsider.
[email protected] - You're link to a worldwide vote for U.S. president is interesting, but Iran voting for Clinton? That's hard to believe. Paveway.
Sorting it out a bit:
Internet polls allow anyone to choose, when looking at this data I was forced to vote twice (from CH) to see the results. These are world-wide polls in which DT wins with 65%-70% or ++ more see e.g. a summary:
The only www-internet poll which showed HRC a tiny winner was from Fortune. To post the link I looked again and now it is switched. If you click thru, an interesting factlet is that about 13-15% (varies with time) click they changed their minds after the debate.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidential-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/
The internet polls that distinguish ‘from where’ (i.e. not US and broken down by country), see e.g. likes on Facebook v. important.
(note the pie chart is proportion and the likes are Hillary's Page = 5.9 M Likes. Trump’s Page = 10.5 M Likes.)
Just impressions, and anyway one can argue it means squat and who cares, but fwiw, the few countries who show thru one or another dodgy ‘measure’ that they support HRC over DT, are, to date: Ukraine, Mexico, KSA, Canada (once?), Pakistan, Iran and Morocco.
The intertubes are filled with hype of all kinds. Ex.
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 27 2016 22:01 utc | 73
Posted by: peter | Sep 27, 2016 5:18:43 PM | 70
She certainly won on the personal. On the rest, I am not so sure.
Trump won the economic, trade part. He managed to paint her as part of the status quo he proposes to fix.
The miracle is how Trump can remain competitive despite alienating so many groups including women.
Posted by: somebody | Sep 27 2016 22:18 utc | 74
@ somebody 74
McClatchy Newspaper – one of very few credible MSM - with the Charlotte Observer (NC) conducted a focus group of 21 mostly undecided North Carolina voters to watch the first presidential debate then led a discussion streamed in real time via FB.
Presidential debate surprise: Clinton loses ground among some voters in swing state
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article104382951.html
Posted by: likklemore | Sep 27 2016 22:32 utc | 75
Posted by: somebody | Sep 27, 2016 6:18:40 PM
I hear ya, like where was he coming from calling that gal Miss Piggy and then Miss Housekeeping. Pissing off the women wasn't enough, go for the ethnics too. Then double down the next morning on Fox.
Nobody was paying attention to the economic plan. Just a rehash of Reagan's trickle-down, you know, the one all us lefties have been bitching about forever.
Posted by: peter | Sep 27 2016 22:42 utc | 76
"Well, there you go again...."
Even Rethuglican media mouthpieces say Trump sucked. And that's what viewers pretty much thought. See this or this. They discuss what actual voters think, not what gamed internet metrics would have you think.
They apparently like The Donald's rants, giving him better marks on articulating the problem, but think Mrs. Clinton would be better at actual solutions.
Funny how that might work, if you have, depending on the day and the tie, no set plan on dealing with ISIS, but expect to have the generals provide one thirty days into the "Administration," or suddenly recently a great policy on ISIS, 'cause you knew better than the generals, But you're not going to warn the enemy by divulging any details of your brilliant plan. So there.
I was far too young and naive to appreciate when Nixon did the "secret plan to end the war" thing. "That trick never works!" "This time for sure!"
Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 27 2016 23:15 utc | 77
@73 Noirette, 'Just impressions, and anyway one can argue it means squat and who cares, but fwiw, the few countries who show thru one or another dodgy ‘measure’ that they support HRC over DT, are, to date: Ukraine, Mexico, KSA, Canada (once?), Pakistan, Iran and Morocco.'
These are just people with internet connections choosing HRC over DT:
Ukraine ... DT is soft on Russia
Mexico ... DT has insulted Mexicans
Canada ... don't want to be deplorable
KSA,
Pakistan,
Iran and ... they're all Muslims
Morocco.
None of these people are in anyway concerned with the performance of HRC vs DT after the election, they judge them both to be 'Americans' - who will follow the 'American' line, they're just 'voting' their response to the personas projected by the TNC media ... not at all unlike Americans themselves, actually.
Posted by: jfl | Sep 28 2016 0:04 utc | 78
The Don is shitting it in. His game is too big. Game over. Thanks for coming. The colluding media-commercial-complex getting properly rogered by one of the monsters it gave birth to. Poetic really.
The neoliberalist denial that anything was wrong with their economic model before or after 2008 could well create the perfect storm for chaos with either result.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Sep 28 2016 0:26 utc | 79
Not surprised to find MofA values do not include paying attention or retaining information.
World leaders, as a group, don't seem especially fond of The Duckhead. Since most of them are not aging white men of limited education and prospects, one can easily see why.
They felt so back in April, when The Guardian found that President Trump fills world leaders with fear.
And Politico finds things unchanged.
Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 28 2016 2:59 utc | 80
The main emotion of any sane and well-informed leftist is disgust after watching 45 minutes of the debatoid, and that's how I felt.
Horserace Talk:
Demian's point at 49 is excellent: "But Trump did not come across as beyond the pale in this debate. Thus, he took away the narrative that the public needs to believe in order not to do what it would usually do – vote out the incumbent party when it is unhappy with the status quo."
Trump was Trump, Hillary was Hillary, but the real Trump is a New York blowhard 'type' most Americans are very familiar with, a bit annoyed by, but definitely not 'scared' of. That's a very tough sale Hillary the mainstream media has for itself. On the other hand Hillary was Hillary. Same old same old Washington insider politician yada yada that most people are tired of, especially in these endless hard economic times. 'Cancel that show' is the natural reaction, as Demian says.
Who's Scarier:
This has to be Clinton. Of course we know both will be obedient to the deep state, the militarist and financial elites, Israel, and so on. But look at the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama sensibly held back from full on rape of Syria, he's been non-belligerent toward Iran.
So there are different grades of Neocon. Clinton would be the full on "we lied, we lied, he died" sort. My guess is that Trump, a know-nothing feeling his way, would be a less confident neocon and therefore more cautious, if not much more cautious, and would continue forward with the 'normal relations with Russia' concept he has made a big deal of.
But hey, his 'cut the taxes for the rich' insanity is a pretty horrible deform from an already horrible status quo. Anyway, vote for Jill as a protest is my half-hearted advice. It's depressing and disgusting and we are helplessly watching it roll on.
b
Vous vote Red or vous vote Blue,
The One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz,
Will still demand an every annual
$4,000,000,000,000 tithe from you.
Posted by: TheRealDonald | Sep 28 2016 5:22 utc | 82
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said American support for the entity would remain strong regardless of who is elected president in November.
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/netanyahu-us-presidential-vote-candidates-will-support-israel/
Unfortunately he is right, and he knows that Iran will be the next target, "regardless of who is elected president in November"
Eight yaars ago, Obama, "hope and change", the Nobel Prize... but Guantanamo is still open.
Posted by: nothing will change | Sep 28 2016 5:27 utc | 83
79
As Chipher pointed out, Bernie's job was to hold down the Left, so Hillary could move Center-Right, and Donald's job was to lead the Rabbinical Far Right over the cliff. Once the 'vote' (sic) is over, cognitive dissonance and herd mentality, together with regular stress positioning, will ensure complete engagement of The People in the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz massive $4,000,000,000,000 charade.
Posted by: TheRealDonald | Sep 28 2016 5:47 utc | 84
60
More than half of humanity live in wattle hovels and cook over dried dung fires and practice infanticide. The remainder of humanity are, to a very large part, indebted to The Chosen more than 100% of (cooked) GDP, and are technically bankrupt, homeless, stateless and starving at the whim of Those Chosen. So if anyone is living in a fantasy world, that would be yourself. The One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz has only one Coda: Self Survival. After they adsorb the Last Wealth of the Fifth Quintile, the last private savings, pensions, home equities of the EU-US elders, they'll resort to perpetual oil wars with EurAsia. Then they'll enslave your children, and build great scientocratic edifices and temples of worship to their legacy, but not ours.
Posted by: TheRealDonald | Sep 28 2016 6:47 utc | 86
the problem is that trump is not compromised and is right in calling nato to act in the interests of the west.hilary has not done so.thats what it comes down to.
Posted by: franz | Sep 28 2016 8:23 utc | 87
They felt so back in April, when The Guardian found that President Trump fills world leaders with fear.
And Politico finds things unchanged.
Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 27, 2016 10:59:38 PM | 80
Most of the West's leaders are "good friends of Israel."
For example, earlier today Malcolm (good friend of Israel) Turnbull was singing the posthumous praises of Nobel Piece Prize winner, and strong advocate for "Israel's" Piece Process, Shimon Peres.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 28 2016 12:22 utc | 88
The Hell Bitch was nothing more than an edition of the Enquirer,bringing up long ago attacks on Trump,that have absolutely nothing to do with policy or Americas future.
And her face was just too made up,with her false eyelashes fluttering behind a wall of pancake makeup,her eyes glittering with some demonic presence,as she lashed out like a furriner extolling all immigrants,weirdos and fat foreign beauty queens and not appealing one iota to US deplorables.
And yeah,both genuflected to Israel,but is there a more powerful influential force in America than the dual citizen traitors?A sad and terrible fact,but they own every media outlet,witnessed by the fact there is not one MSM outlet pro Trump,a never before scenario in our history.
And of course world leaders don't like Trump,as he will cut off the spigots and make them pay for their own defense,instead of US.
But only those prejudiced rufus and America haters fail to note that.
Posted by: dahoit | Sep 28 2016 13:03 utc | 89
Forgive me if this is a repeat, but it wouldn't hurt if so, since so rarely does a third candidate get mentioned. Amy Goodman did the American public a great service by publishing the transcript of the debate, with Jill Stein's answers (had she been permitted to attend) within the transcript - you really, really all should read this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/27/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates
Posted by: juliania | Sep 28 2016 13:54 utc | 90
So Hitlary is apparently alive and not in jail contrary to previous rumors.
Lame-scream media announced her win in the debate as 1-0 - does it mean the establishment is not behind Trump, who received some strange endorsements recently from former enemies like Ted Cruz?
What I consider interesting is that being that far in the game still any options seem to be opened:
1) Killary wins (trough rigged votes or claim of Russian hacking in favor of Trump)
2) Trump wins
3) Congress appoints the president because of tie in the electoral votes
4) Obama continues his presidency because of some "emergency": "Russian hackers" attacking the election systems, false flag massacre in the US, ME, Ukraine, "natural" disaster (is the constitution still suspended after 9/11 and COG in play? NDAA?)
5) Bernie Sanders joins the race as an independent because of new grave evidence against Hitlary
6) Hitlary withdraws "because of her sudden health problems" - Demockrats appoint Biden, Pence, Michelle Obama, ...?
7) Military organizes a coup against Obama
8) Security apparatus organizes a coup against Hitlary after her election
9) Deep state organizes a coup against Trump after his election (remember "business plot" against FDR headed by Prescott Bush and defused by general Butler?)
10) Third party wins because Trump and Clinton become unelectable
Anyway many signals indicate that we are to see an "October Surprise" for sure.
It seems that the plan is the keep people guessing until the very end.
The crucial question is - which people?
Posted by: ProPeace | Sep 28 2016 13:54 utc | 91
The Debate: Trump’s Three Points for Peace
Better on nukes, better on entangling alliances, better on Russia
http://russia-insider.com/en/debate-trumps-three-points-peace/ri16701
Posted by: From The Hague | Sep 28 2016 14:18 utc | 92
Ted Rall (author of the book Snowden):
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Trump did great for a guy who has never run for political office before – and didn’t cram for the debate. Hillary has debated at the presidential level so many times she could probably do it half of it in her sleep. If I go into the ring with heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury and manage to survive a round with all but one of my teeth, it’s fair to say that I won. …Maybe the herd is right. Maybe it’s a simple matter of she did better, he did worse. But I keep thinking, debates are graded on a curve. She was supposed to kick his ass. Yet there he is, dead even in the polls with her.
A last point about the debate. They are very scripted, organised, funelled, etc. Much much more so than the public realises, by the promoters (network), the PTB, etc. Viperous bitter discussions take place about what can or cannot be mentioned. (I presume as that is the case in other countries besides the US.) Trump tweeted he ‘held back’ because he did not want to embarass HRC, but imho he was muzzled in part by the ‘’deals’ as the show itself illustrated, softball to HRC and interrupting DT etc. Imho HRC was given the questions beforehand, DT not (but who knows?) and basically everything was organised beforehand to put him at a disadvantage.
HRC, the PTB, deep state, neo-lib-cons, still think they can ‘win’ by using these kinds of blatant domineering tactics. The point has been made by many: all these standard coercitive controlling moves can now backfire badly, they only serve to show up that the Establishment creeps use illegit. actions, and in any case Trump supporters won’t be moved an inch, he could give out a recipe for Texas BBQ (as one pol I saw did but for rabbit, see previous posts), or flat out ask the moderator, well IDK, what do you think? and that would be peachy..
Trump followed the no. 1 rule (campaign for yself not against the other), as he was surely advised to do. Various excuses, rationalisations are put forward for it: he wanted to appeal to the conventional Repub base, appear as a legit candidate to ppl who had never seen him ‘live’ before, he is holding back for the next debates, etc. Still, his performance was not tops, in the sense of a maverick breaking the mold, he fell down, was a disapointment. He was shown up to be low man on the pole, constrained by negotiations which he could not dominate, rules which he could not transgress. Of course many DT supporters and possible new ones perceived the manipulations quite clearly, and were thus on his side, so a mixed bag. (It’s all optics so i wrote nothing about the real issues.)
Posted by: Noirette | Sep 28 2016 19:15 utc | 94
I agree with Noirette @ 94
I was surprised, while watching the debate, at how subdued it all was. The subject matter was clearly circumscribed by previous agreement. The public can never escape the scripted product they receive; and another way of saying this, is that the agreed-upon lies, always make up the bulk of the debate. The narrative is sanitized to an important degree, and just shows the effect of suffocating control. Neither person won the debate after all, for the oppressively scripted event was only meant to impress the public with the idea that the race is still a close one. And who, after all, knows what will happen.
@94 n, @95 c
Bruce Dixon recounts his experience outside the debate itself, Hundreds of Cops Divert and Foil Thousands of Protesters Outside NY Presidential Debate
While inside the debate moderator Lester Holt failed to ask questions about joblessness, medical care, student loans, police murder or mass incarceration, New York police outside the debate showed the world how to suppress free speech with a soft hand, diverting more than two thousand protesters into "free speech zones" long lines and checkpoints and spaces artfully designed to prevent groups from concentrating in one place or finding each other.
And Glen Ford points up its obvious, mobbed-up circumstances The Great Debate That Never Was on the inside
If the Green Party’s Jill Stein had been allowed in this week’s presidential debate, it would have transformed the discussion and altered the race. That’s why Democrats and Republicans kept it a duopoly-only affair. “The only circumstances in which either Trump or Clinton can muster a minimally compelling argument, is against each other.”
To anyone awake and questioning the legitimacy of the 'arrangements' made for the election, especially the 'newborn' skeptics who abound at this point, this whole 'show' is just confirmation of their worst fears. The Powers That Are can't do anything right any longer. Everything they do is wrong, and is immediately apparent as wrong, on the big screen and booming through the big megaphone. They'd do better just to lay off but, like all the extras brought on to push Xmas after Thanksgiving, there are just too many of them wound-up and let loose, stepping and slipping from one pile of dog-doo to another, as they tear down the streets of NYC and Hollywood.
I think there's a very good chance that this is the year the extravaganza implodes.
Posted by: jfl | Sep 28 2016 23:01 utc | 96
You talkin ‘bout The Chosen, then you doin’ some posin’.
The Donald wants to invade your country, or build a wall around it, or just charge you protection money. But the only reason world leaders dislike him is specified by protocol.
Folks seem unaware that one of the few charities for which regular contributions can be documented for The Duckhead is the Anti-Defamation League. “Some people might be surprised to learn that, among many other causes, he contributed generously to ADL in years past.”
Those pesky facts!
Speaking of pesky facts, here are a few you overlooked from The Great Debate. You Trumpeters are back at it again.
“Sure it appears he actually lost the debate. But since pundits are talking about The Donald in the same breath as ‘The Presidency,’ it really means we won!” That would be mostly a breath saying "not fit to be near the presidency". Just lower the bar into the Marianas Trench and be done with it, OK?
Here's a guy that did what, fifty debates in four years with over 1,000 opponents (well, the Rethuglican clown car primary seemed that way)? No reason to lower the bar, IMHO. Hasn't his job since well before the convention been to look presidential? Results do rather suggest that he's not really been working too hard at it.
Most analyses, like these from HuffPost; and from The Daily Banter thought that Mrs. Clinton won it going away.
Early polling gave the victory to Mrs. Clinton, 55-45. But of course, as Chief Spokesfraud Conway has pronounced, The Donald’s shy supporters are hiding from the pollsters and other meanies who don’t want to Make America Great Again ™! They’re only voters, after all, why would you want to ask them?
So, I’m wondering when the last time a “normal” post-debate analysis featured even Trump’s surrogates saying he blew it? Here’s a summary of Tweets. I like this one by David French of The National Review.
After the first fifteen-twenty minutes, it was like the SS Trump hit the iceberg, then backed up and hit it again just because.
Chuck Todd called it The Most Abnormal Event I've Ever Witnessed.
When was the last normal debate that produced such a clip reel of such interruptios, mansplaining and contemptuous facial expressions?
When was the last Presidential candidate who said he had “Nothing to say” to African Americans?
When was the last time doubling down on fat-shaming a former Miss Universe as “Miss Housekeeping” got you in good with the feminist and Hispanic voters?
I understood he closed by saying “Hey, I coulda talked a lot more shit about her. But it’s even too embarrassing even for me.” Sure sounds like winning, and oh, so very, very presidential....
So one must consider any defense of this poor performance translates into dumbing shit down for The Donald. “Since he wasn’t reduced to a blathering blob of orange protoplasm, he looked presidential and won the debate.” Apparently, just blathering won't do for the loss.
Does The Donald email these talking points? Given the poor state of his campaign "organization," I'm guessing one cribs them from Breitbart. That's what Bannon's there for, right?
You're certainly not getting them from Fox. You Trumpeters didn’t get the memo, HQ has said the on-line polls are not to be relied upon, as Fox News Tells Hannity To Knock It Off Citing Bogus Insta-polls. Crooks and Liars quotes Business Insider.
Dana Blanton, the vice president of public-opinion research at Fox News, explained in the memo obtained by Business Insider that "online 'polls' like the one on Drudge, Time, etc. where people can opt-in or self-select... are really just for fun."..."Another problem — we know some campaigns/groups of supporters encourage people to vote in online polls and flood the results," she wrote. "These quickie click items do not meet our editorial standards."
...Trump had come out ahead in a slew of unscientific polls, or polls in which the sample of participants did not accurately reflect the sample of viewers who watched the debate. Such polls are almost always discounted by professional pollsters and analysts....
"News networks and other organizations go to great effort and rigor to conduct scientific polls — for good reason," Blanton wrote in the memo. "They know quick vote items posted on the web are nonsense, not true measures of public opinion."
Hey, let's start a conspiracy theory -- Ailes' Sex Crime thing was all a plot by the DNC and the Illuminati to take over a conservative mouthpiece and throw the election to Mrs. Clinton. Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
And seriously, The Duckhead, following an agreement or a script? He can only with diffuiculty stay to his teleprompted utterances. Not when best and most fabulous words come out of his... whatever.
Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 29 2016 0:25 utc | 97
Oh, rufus: so you are for defamation? What is wrong in being against defamation? And donations are not particularly puzzling. The usual profile of ADL donors are elderly rich Zionist Jews, which would mean dad of Duckhead's daughter's father-in-law, and humoring family members was presumably the motivation for Trump's donations.
That said, by objective observations and public confessions, Trump's views are to an unusual degree molded by family and acquaintances, so ADL donations are indeed matched by typical pro-Zionist behaviors like penchant for quoting or praising Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, hostility to Iran and the deal with Iran, etc. And that allows to conjecture that his policies on Syria, Libya etc. would not be a whit better than those of HRC, and perhaps quite a bit worse (his penchant for instructing Navy and Air Force to shoot during peaceful encounters). On Russia, Ukraine and Crimea the Duckhead was indeed "refreshing", and that can well be due to his acquaintance with Manaford or whoever recommended the chap to him. But here is how the Duckhead explained his hostility to the deal with Iran:
"Trump comment on the Iran nuclear deal during a campaign rally in South Carolina on July 21, 2015. Try to follow the train of thought (good luck!):
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."
Somehow this speech rings in my ears and evokes Bob Marley. "And so, and so, I shot the sheriff, but I didn't shoot no deputy, oh no no! No womah, no cry, ooo, no womah no cry! So I say, they just kill us, ooo no no!" With a strong reggae rhythm, it actually can sound well.
In fact, this gives room for cautious optimism. Because the Duckhead bragged how he would instruct the military to shoot at Ruskies and the Persians, I claimed that he would cause WWIII. But by gazing into the crystal ball I learned that he will conduct four meeting on the matter, but each time he will interrupt himself so many times that nothing will come out of them.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 29 2016 7:08 utc | 98
Noisette: "Trump followed the no. 1 rule (campaign for yself not against the other), as he was surely advised to do. Various excuses, rationalisations are put forward for it [but I figure that he was] constrained by negotiations which he could not dominate, rules which he could not transgress."
Clearly, Trump cannot rely solely on his political accomplishments and acumen, but he has to utilize the fact that his opponent is Wicked Witch as it was documented for the last 20+ years. However, he already breaks a "rule" that you do it gently in person and viciously through the surrogates, preferably using TV ads paid for some mysterious "independent" committees with totally opaque funding. Making very personal attacks not only in person, but in a personal confrontation on national TV would break those rules much more severely. Why do those rules exists? After all, they are not imposed by a cabal, but by campaign advisers. And the simple reason is the historical record.
One historical example is Alan Gore rolling his eyes during the whoppers told by W Bush during their debate. He was attacked quite successfully for this lack of courtesy. But even more pertinent example is the first political campaign of HRC for her own behalf, to become the Senator from the great state of New York. Her opponent, certain Lazio, decided to use the Wicked Witch weapon during the debate, prepared a "powerful question" and moved toward her podium to doggedly demand the answer. And that made a huge story that deranged Lazio attempted to physically intimidate a lady and his campaign did not recover. And true enough, Democrats prepared nice lists how many times Trump interrupted Clinton (about once in every two minutes, so once a minute when Clinton was speaking) and how many times Clinton interrupted Trump, six times less if I recall well. And the most masterful attack, the tear provoking story of Trump publicly humiliating a 19 year old Latino woman who now campaigns against him in Florida (helped by another female Latino celebrity). Florida results hang by a hair, and this can be the hair that will break the back of Trump's race.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 29 2016 7:48 utc | 99
So what happened to Assange's announcement from weeks ago about a big Wikileak's dump coming in September that would sink HRC...?
Posted by: ProPeace | Sep 29 2016 8:32 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
Hillary Clinton Lost?
Or was that the other one?
Penelope #93 in:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/hillary-clinton-knows-that-she-lost.html
Posted by: From The Hague | Sep 27 2016 6:22 utc | 1