I recognize election season is always crazy in the states, especially as an outside observer looking in, but this cycle seems so far beyond that norm compared even to 4 years ago it makes me quite uncomfortable. It reeks of a growing desperation by the elites to me. The 2012 campaigns of the two major parties were a circus by any measure, but they seem completely measured and intellectual by this year’s standards.
I understand American culture dwells a lot on violence, but the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It seems most of the country’s population is either willfully ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it on wildly and willingly. How anybody could advocate carpet bombing without irony or rebuttal is frightenening. That it could drum up support – well that’s just depressing.
The two most important topics in this election, nuclear weapons and global warming, both candidates have been decidedly silent about. It scares me that neither party even attempts to appeal to the left anymore, except by manipulating them by fear and non existent ‘security’ issues. If it’s all about PR and perception management anyways, I wonder why Clinton wears her right leaning nature and war mongering history on her sleeve? Maybe content and debate matters less than I assume it does to the average American voter. Maybe it’s totally about spectacle and personality now and nothing else. Sad, sad days for those who live in the middle of the Empire but it’s hard to be sympathetic sometimes. It seems the hot new consumer electronic device gets more of a thorough analysis and debate than does either major party candidates’ platform (if you could even call it that).
Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the candidate as ‘isolationist’).
Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained (despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an ‘environmentalist’).

Posted by: FecklessLeft | Sep 15 2016 18:52 utc | 3

As everyone knows, the US normalized relations with Qaddafi in 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Normalizing_relations
The Obama administration authorized CIA backing of the rebellion almost before it started. In all likelihood, it started several years before the revolt, and the authorization was to provide legal cover for activity that was already ongoing.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331

Posted by: Les | Sep 15 2016 18:57 utc | 5

There is so many “but’s” in this cycle and so much stuff to point to it makes me wonder if they will be able to have a election . Andrew P. Napolitano latest What’s the FBI Hiding? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45475.htm
says “Yet the FBI — which knew of the post-subpoena destruction of evidence and which acknowledged that Clinton failed to return thousands of her work-related emails as she had been ordered by a federal judge to do, notwithstanding at least three of her assertions to the contrary while under oath — chose to overlook the evidence of not only espionage but also obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, perjury and misleading Congress.” and yet Hillary is running like a doped race horse for the finish .

Posted by: Terry | Sep 15 2016 19:29 utc | 7

Any leader of any nation – dictator or otherwise – is permitted to freely dispense populist rhetoric. He crosses the line however if he attempts to actually institute any action which might potentially benefit common people.
If that happens, he is either corrected immediately or removed from office by any number of means including assassination.
These are the rules.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Sep 15 2016 20:12 utc | 9

The short answer is the one You asked already:
…solely depending on the size of payments to the Clinton Foundation.
Thank You once again for pointing towards the Dinosaur in the living room.

Posted by: Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 15 2016 20:39 utc | 11

@12 TS
I agree that Trump is probably the lessor of two evils … butcha never can tell, canya? I think the thing to do is to vote for an ‘other‘, and then, having postulated a future, work to develop one. But you can vote for Trump or whomever you like. Just don’t stay home on 8 November.
Noirette is forecasting a landslide for Trump. Do you believe it?

Posted by: jfl | Sep 15 2016 21:40 utc | 13

@12 ToivoS,
Ironic, this bourgeois liberal “building an alliance with the many disparate tribes” — of poster children — “that made up” the Democratic Party, isn’t it?

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 15 2016 21:51 utc | 15

Mostly OT–Unknown to me until a moment ago is the fact that Politico has a separate .eu edition that has published a very important essay by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Why The Arabs Don’t want Us In Syria, http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/ He provides a graphic history lesson and enough material for the Mike Whitney piece, Assad’s Death Warrant, linked above by ALAN. I wonder what reason Politico’s editors would provide for not publishing Kennedy’s essay on its main USA site, although I’d bet whatever explanation provided would be a falsehood of some kind.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 15 2016 22:28 utc | 17

Oops, sorry, but I thought the Kennedy essay was rather recent; instead, it was published back at the end of February, nor is it without its own exceptionalistic flaws. I wonder if Whitney knows his material’s dated?

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 16 2016 0:04 utc | 19

I just drove from Durham, NC through Virginia and Pennsylvania. Those are three swing states. I bypassed WashDC. I saw exactly four Clinton signs (3) or bumper stickers (1) but the Trump signs were too numerous to count. Trump signs were often on farms, or small businesses or very tidy houses. Name-calling the very people you need seems not to be a wise strategy; these are the kind of people who trust their own experience, and their neighbors, and don’t read the NYT. They know they aren’t the cool kids. Trump is willing to say he is one-of-us. The crowds of serious, local people are making him into the leader they need him to be. He seems genuinely humbled by the support, as he gets out of the TV studio and into reality. He admits he is working harder than he ever has in his life.

Posted by: S.H.E. | Sep 16 2016 0:23 utc | 21

I really don’t like to post more than once to any thread. But, this article from Dissident Voice by Andre Vlitchek does put a different spin on things: http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/09/both-ms-clinton-and-i-got-burned-out-for-very-different-reasons/#more-64032
Clinton with PTSD? Well, it does make sense … when I tilt at too many windmills my PTSD emerges. So it does make sense that guilt (what I feel about my role in Vietnam) can really weaken one. My role in not resisting the empire also affects my PTSD – a life is full of battles, and guilt. So maybe, just maybe, Andre is on to something here?

Posted by: rg the lg | Sep 16 2016 2:27 utc | 23

Roberts uses the term “insouciant” to describe American citizenry and I think that is, in a way, an accurate descriptive. I live in a progressive town full of really good people, almost all of whom are basically unconcerned about the Democrats’ horrendous record of warmongering, of trade deals that have created century-level income disparities, the growth of a police state surveillance society, etc., etc.. It’s like we are all living in a horrible dream world, going about our daily affairs in a dream state.
As for those who support the Republicans, they seem content to blame everything bad on ‘illegal immigrants’, and other species of ‘The Other’.
And yet, there are real signs of political unrest, of people wanting to see an alternative vision for America and for humanity. In America both ‘major’ parties were roiled by major rebel candidates this election cycle. There is an urge towards real change that is is international too. In England, Corbyn. In Greece, Syriza. Etc.. Such paroxysms of rebellion may ended in frustration, but they surely point to the real possibility of redemption via the vox populi.
So it’s not all insouciance.
A lot depends on the Left. The fall of the Soviet Union seemed to suck the soul out of the Left globally – as if the Soviet Union really represented some kind of model leftist state!!! The Left must recover and help the people of America and the world articulate a redemptive alternative direction for humanity. Right now we seem to be either headed towards a global police state a la Orwell or a global nuclear war. That just looks like a choice between two different kinds of extinction for humanity.

Posted by: paul | Sep 16 2016 4:01 utc | 25

@26 h ‘… war, that hegemon policy now fully belongs to the D’s’
And you’re right, will remain in their hands if Hillary is elected, but will return to the R’s if they manage to pull the wool over American eyes, again. You haven’t forgotten the stolen election of 2000, 9/11, and the deliberate beginning of this chain of serial aggressions, have you? It seems like you have. The only thing worse than a D is an R … and conversely, after Escher, the only thing worse than an R is a D. It’s all relative. There is but one party in the menagerie, the war party, occupying two cages each holding a species very closely related to the other.
I’m sorry for your bad experiences with the NGOs but I’m afraid I cannot but disagree with your assessment of the Anthropocene as well.
But it’s like ‘arguing’ about 9/11, with an unbeliever – a fruitless pursuit.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 5:22 utc | 27

@19 karlof
Well, Kennedy – any Kennedy – is a made man, a concoction of ‘exceptionalist flaws’. I’m sure that Mike Whitney noticed those as well. There was some discussion of the Kennedy article here after it came out. I think that people took the good points and left the bad. That’s what I did at any rate. The article is good for its ‘shock’ value. Mike realizes there’s a difference between points made under his name and points made under a Kennedy’s name. And all the points have been made before, under Mike’s and others names, to no avail. Mike’s selection and his exposition are correct, seems to me. Counterpunch ain’t what it used to be, and Mike is addressing a different audience than in years gone by.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 5:31 utc | 29

P@sigil | Sep 16, 2016 1:22:10 AM | 28
As bad as Hillary is, she has taken the issue of climate change pretty seriously:…
Shssss!
And you still believe a proven liar and criminal?

Posted by: Jack Smith | Sep 16 2016 6:55 utc | 31

Sigil @ 28: HRC would take the issue of climate change seriously if she thought she could gain some advantage from being seen supporting the topic, and if her support for it gained her something in return.

Posted by: Jen | Sep 16 2016 11:27 utc | 33

sigil @ 28
The legions of Dem weasels pandering their climate change credentials can promise everything, when they know that the Corporate Bill of Rights trilogy (TPP, T-TiP, & TISA) will financially eliminate all climate initiatives, treaties, and regulations.

Posted by: Enrico Malatesta | Sep 16 2016 13:04 utc | 35

@h 26 @xLemming 34
OK, forget climate change/global warming. The fossil fuelers are still poisoning, destroying aquifers wherever they frack. Still removing mountain tops and poisoning surface waters wherever they unearth coal, or mine tar sands. The Fossil fuelers are still fueling all the trouble and strife in MENA … and the tentacles of their supply lines reach through and through, fueling the wars for fossil fuels all over the planet.
And … there’s enough evidence to convince me of the ill effects of adding more CO2 … and Methane … to our earth’s atmosphere.
I am amazed at the evaporation of concern for our destruction of our environment … in so many ways, not ‘just’ the fossil fuel suicide. I shouldn’t be, I know. People en masse have always accepted suicidal life styles with shocking sangfroid.
The Financiers, the Fusiliers, the Fossil Fuelers. They are the enemy, not one can be ignored. Not from my point of view, at any rate.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 13:10 utc | 37

@37 jfl… agreed, for the most part, the oligarchs are raping the planet without any concern for the environment or the indigenous people there. And when the need/time comes, we will be those people in their cross-hairs, if we happen to be sitting on or next to some valuable resource or unnecessary wind-farm location
If I may add, and I must give credit to the likes of pv4 and others… there’s more to the ME conflicts than just oil – that’s just layer 2 of the “onion” (layer 1 being the feigned concern for the local populations)
Layer 3 are other resources, namely water
Layer 4 is domination and control of neighboring regions, i.e. greater Israel project
Maybe there are other layers, I dunno… but like the onion, it is causing much senseless grief and tears

Posted by: xLemming | Sep 16 2016 13:57 utc | 39

@h 38 ‘Both Stein and Johnson strike me as good and decent folk, but I don’t see leadership in either one. I think about what kind of nutter either candidate would appoint as Sec’y of State or Dir of the CIA or as the DNI and well, that’s enough to keep me out of their lanes and sadly keeps me stuck in the either/or good/bad system.’
No problem with the SoS, DCIA, or DNI picks of Clinton/Trump though. You’ve gotta be kidding me. I don’t think either Stein or Johnson have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected … the point of the drill is to accustom ourselves to, to get us in the habit of, rejecting either of the latest GMOs from the menagerie and to develop our own. A moment’s reflection will convince you that a revolution is more than the work of one November’s morn. I hope.
Breitbart? give me a break.
@39 xL ‘Layer 3 are other resources, namely water’
I certainly agree there, and water weaponized by Turkey. The underlying stress is from climate change … I’ll not argue its cause in order to spare your (dis)beliefs. It’s happening, though, whatever its cause. See Christopher Parenti, Tropic of Chaos. If we licked the 3Fs we’d be able to take on the world of shit they’ve left to us. And not a moment too soon.
Yes there are layers, in Syria and elsewhere. Ry Cooder sings taxes on the farmer feeds us all, well, the receipts of the fossil fuelers are the ones that fuels them all.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 14:24 utc | 41

HRC campaign speeches are the worst I have ever heard, and I’ve heard some. The best-worst was a woman (50s, not glam, but with a v. good speaking voice) candidate for mayor of a large-ish town, she stood up and gave a very long, detailed, and spirited outlay of a recipe lapin à la moutarde , including how the guests should be served, etc.
The audience, this being CH, laughed and clapped. What her point was exactly Idk, but the reference to rabbits (poser un lapin in F means to duck out, be a no show) and mustard well even in Eng. (mustard up your nose..). Maybe her point was simply, this election is stitched up, and I might as well use the time to actually inform about something I know about. She followed the no. 1 rule, Campaign for yourself, not against the other candidate(s). Ok amusing trivia dpt.
HRC is not fit to be a politician (independently of her med. probs, her lies, her ‘record’.) From my low standards of today – I would call Sanders, Trump, Stein, Johnson and e.g. Kasich, ‘fit’. HRC has occupied some positions of power thru marriage, but mostly via criminal-corrupt circuits where domination proceeds thru imposition of subservience to the ‘dominator’ who holds various levers, financial, legal, informational, even life-n-death if we believe some, (etc.) in a kind of web of personal relations, all between ‘top’ ppl./institutions.
A common delusion of ppl of that sort (I have known 2-3) is that if their cabal and the fantastic loyalty of hangers-on, and the *costly* endeavours and moves that control work on these upper orgs., they must work on everyone and will continue doing so.
It follows that the public body can’t be conceived as having any legit opinion/inclination/desires/demands, they are just peons outside the system and it is inconceivable that they would not fall into the same position as the lowly intern who trades sex and wide-eyed adulation of the top dogs for her job. (The small personal private circle is projected to include millions of ppl. Sure it is par for the course to pander to the ‘poor’ with fakey stuff.)
A rival (DT) can only be viewed as illegit, can only have used nefarious means to be more popular (projection), he/she is the only ‘threat’ on the horizon, he/she must be evil incarnate, and maintaining one’s position can only be achieved by attacking said rival. So HRC – who is a very stupid woman – falls smack into that trap, and it is obvious that ppl close to her / the DNC, have no leverage to affect that, she is the ultimate despot, the Madam Queen, they cannot act at all, and actually don’t care much (except for pay as long as continues..)

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 16 2016 15:15 utc | 43

yep, jfl, you got me. I failed to note that the pantheon of the permanent political class that owns DC is just as frightening if not more to me than the types of leaders the third parties would attract and appoint. My bad.
I’m sick of having no choices and holding my nose when I cast my vote. Maybe this year, is the year I finally join those who refuse to participate in the macabre political theater anymore.

Posted by: h | Sep 16 2016 16:33 utc | 45

@45 h
Why don’t you just join us “other’s”? Boost our percentage. From 1.6% we have nowhere to go but up. We are many and they are few, but we need to demonstrate our numbers, recognize our power before we can work with it. Staying home won’t do it. It’s not as though it costs you anything. We’ll certainly get nowhere without good folks like yourself.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 16 2016 17:35 utc | 47

Just say no to Clinton, not to Trump. Postulate a future. Bring it about.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 17 2016 2:01 utc | 49

MSM ;Trump accuses Clinton of birther origin.Well,over at Counterpunch,St.Clair notes;Sid Blumenthal sent email to someone in 08 saying Obama born in Kenya.There it is,straight from her close advisers fingers.
And his call of her dropping her bodyguards weaponry;Of course its true she loves guns,but only in the right hands,no deplorables allowed.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 17 2016 13:46 utc | 51

Trump by a landslide. (I’m no shill for Trump not my biz, wouldn’t vote for him if I could, though I sympathise with the ‘lesser evil’ position.)
To my mind ‘Likes’ (maybe I’ll post more about FB likes) and ‘strong support’ etc. are vital, telling indicators, in contrast to ‘voting against the other candidate’ (++ high in 2016), considering the candidate trustworthy, or categories such as ‘Will vote for HRC / The Dem candidate’ and so on.
In the last four elections, the candidate who won was the one who was most strongly supported by the voters of his (D/R) party or ‘leanings.’
In 2004, Rs were very supportive of Bush, they really loved the guy (71% strong support.)
In 2008, when Obama popped up, the Dems raved and rallied behind him (58% strong support) while only 34% Rs strongly supported McCain.
In 2012, 60% Dems were strongly supportive of Obama, with only 38% Rs strongly supported Romney.
This is a kind of measure of ‘mood’ of the country or ‘enthusiasm’, and the nos. are just indicative, from one source only, as an ex.
Turn-out is affected imho (no numbers), ppl who strongly support, like, agree with X candidate, are committed to him/her are very or quite likely to vote, while all the others, bleh…not so much.
Turn-out in the US is not massive – 57% in 2012 Pres. election. Strong support drags ppl into the booth, they are determined, motivated; mild support, voting ‘aginst’, not being sure, indifference, and rejecting the whole shmear leads to ‘low’ turnout for them.
The latest figures (Pew) show ‘strong support’ at equality. 45% for DT and HRC. A close race, once again. But I don’t credit these numbers, as imho Trump supporters are more committed than HRC supporters.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296360-enthusiasm-gap-looms-for-clinton

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 17 2016 15:14 utc | 53