Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton Lost

The U.S. presidential election of 2016 is decided. Hillary Clinton will not win. She knows it:

(You can turn the sound off. It is irrelevant.)

Clinton was talking during a video conference of the Laborers' International Union of North America. She is furious with everything around her. She does not understand why she (again) failed.

The polls are turning against her. "But Trump is lying!"

Of course he is. Everyone knows he is lying. He is a salesman seeking his own advantage. He is expected to lie and to exaggerate. He does not even hide it. He is authentic in his lying.

That's why he is - to many people - still a likeable man who one can deep down basically trust.

Hillary Clinton is a politician. She claims not lie. But from her extensive public record people know that lying is exactly what she does. She is thereby not authentic. She does not inspire confidence. Nor does she inspire sympathy. Just see her terrible, angry performance above.

Does she really believe that campaign ads with Michael Hayden, Max Boot and other failed neocons will get her any votes?

She already lost the young people. She lost the military who are far less interventionist than the politicians. No one of the real, non-interventionist left will ever vote for her. Here move to the right, away from criticizing the Republican party, enables Republicans to win more congressional seats than necessary:

Through the end of May, the plan to “disaggregate” Trump, as it was described in one lengthy email, remained a source of frustration for Miranda, the campaign’s go-between on messaging at the DNC. In the same email, subject-lined “Problem with HFA [Hillary For America],” he argued that the campaign’s frame — that “Trump is much worse than regular Republicans” — would give down-ballot GOP candidates an “easy out” and put every Democrat not named Clinton at a possible disadvantage. (“It might be a good strategy ONLY for Clinton,” Miranda wrote.) Worse, he added, the strategy would put the party “at odds” with the its own broader message against Republicanism.

This is a (well deserved) disaster for her party.

There is some Hail Mary chance for the Democrats to still win. Immediately retire Clinton for medical reasons. Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency. Otherwise, I predict, Trump will win.

To what outcome?

Nobody knows. Electing Trump is a blind dart throw with unpredictable results. But that still feels better than to again see a Clinton in the White House.

Posted by b on September 23, 2016 at 14:09 UTC | Permalink

next page »


Posted by: beq | Sep 23 2016 14:19 utc | 1

As someone said on another blog, it's a choice between evil and awful. Although we don't know how the awful might work out, we have some very good ideas about how evil will work out. My biggest fear is Hillary's warmongering. If she were to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, as she has proposed, it would be tantamount to a declaration of war on Russia. Trump may seem dangerously naive with his questions about why not use nuclear weapons since we have them, but I believe he could be persuaded that it would quickly lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Hillary, on the other hand, may escalate with Russia to the point of considering and using tactical battlefield nuclear weapons. Obama's $1trillion multi-year upgrade of our nuclear capacity includes such devices.

For me, however, the question of which to vote for doesn't make much difference as I live in Alabama and it will certainly go for Trump. I will probably not vote for President at all and just vote the down ticket races.

God(dess)(s)(es)(if any) help us all.

Posted by: John Zelnicker | Sep 23 2016 14:26 utc | 2

With Trump we can hope this Syria-craziness will stop.

The real estate tycoon and former reality television star blasted Clinton’s policy towards Russia saying that she "has the wrong attitude" towards Moscow alleging that both Hillary and Obama have prompted "something worse than the Cold War" through continued saber rattling rather than finding opportunities for compromise and collaboration.

"Russia can be a tremendous help to us in knocking out ISIS and save us a lot,” said Trump. “And that can happen with the proper leadership."

Posted by: From The Hague | Sep 23 2016 14:27 utc | 3

I wouldn't rule out cheating by team clinton via those diebold machines. She will likely win even if she doesn't if you get the drift. I guarantee Hillary will not accept defeat either. If trump somehow wins, Hillary will claim Putin did it and ask her gullible followers and fellow neocons (some of these latter are generals or otherwise military) to rise up against Putin's agent Trump. That could get ugly.

Posted by: Alaric | Sep 23 2016 14:30 utc | 4

DNC conspired to crush Bernie for a corrupt, Wall Street funded, status quo inducing, multimillionaire militarist. They deserve what's a comin'...

Posted by: Steve | Sep 23 2016 14:33 utc | 5

If Trump wins Pence will run the country while Trump pursues his business interests. Pence is very far right and I would prefer Clinton.

Posted by: Dan Myers | Sep 23 2016 14:40 utc | 6

I don't which of these two is going to win, but I think it's crazy to vote for either one of them. If trump does win, I'll wager it will be as difficult, one year from now, to find the folks who voted for him as it is now to find Obama voters.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 14:40 utc | 7

@3 fth, 'With Trump we can hope ...'

Where have I heard that before?

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 14:46 utc | 8

I think you're right on Hillary's losing it b. When your whole pitch revolves around your opponent, when his/her name is at the center of your campaign speeches, you're done for, and broadcasting it.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 14:51 utc | 9

@3 fth

Don't get me wrong, fth. If you like Trump vote for him. We all have one vote and can spend it as we like.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 14:53 utc | 10

Trump is a liar but nobody trusts Hillary. Talk about a distinction without a difference...a choice between delusionals and deplorables.

Posted by: JohnH | Sep 23 2016 14:57 utc | 11

The usual suspects spew the usual BS.
Trump is the best thing for America since wonder bread(even whole grain),a return to America for Americans instead of the banksters and zion.
And this rethug renaissance?I wouldn't count on that either,as many hate the rethugs like McCain,Graham and Ryan and the other whores of zion,and I hope many are defeated.
In fact,they,the rethugs, might be more anti Trump than demoncrats.
And BS is toast,he lost his mojo the second he capitulated to the thief who stole his election.,and Tulsi Gabbard would have a snowballs chance in hell,as she is a Hindu nationalist,another pig in a poke.
Todays local LI news says Trump up 42-39 on LI.
If she can't win LI,she is toast.
And a local teacher(Smithtown)says she can tell the racist students from their Trump T-shirts.
Who da racists?

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 23 2016 14:57 utc | 12

"We all have one vote and can spend it as we like."

Do you actually believe this?

Posted by: Former 11B | Sep 23 2016 14:57 utc | 13

If you don't like either one vote for a third party candidate if one is available. If enough people do it the 2 big parties will start to take this seriously again.

Send a message. Here is a list. Pick one.

Posted by: BraveNewWorld | Sep 23 2016 15:00 utc | 14

This morning brings an article in Politico by one of RFK's speech writers on why he is voting for Trump as the "peace candidate" -- be it ever so humble, even tenuous, when the alternative is Clinton.

Politico: I Was RFK’s Speechwriter. Now I’m Voting for Trump. Here’s Why. The Democratic Party has become something both JFK and RFK would deplore—the party of war.

The Guardian has Clinton declaring her magic way to defeat ISIL is to kill Baghdadi ... yup, more of the old-time religious "cut of the head of the snake" mythology

Guardian: Hillary Clinton's plan to stop Isis: hunt down leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Also, blast from the past, more surveillance, smarter surveillance, more up-front partnering with Silicon Valley.

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Sep 23 2016 15:01 utc | 15

A vote for evil is a vote for evil!
This message approved by the Dollary Clump Campaign.

WW3 vs global climate collapse: the choice is yours!

The electric chair or waterboarding...

Posted by: jsn | Sep 23 2016 15:02 utc | 16

From the get-go 'quickened' US voters were FU Deep State not necessarily USA-USA-Trump. Nothing's changed. Except being more convinced every day a vote for Trump is the ONLY means we have to 'smoke the hive'. And buy some time. For better angels to emerge.

Posted by: Take Me | Sep 23 2016 15:04 utc | 17

Hey b, I don't know if you've seen this yet, but it's mighty explosive - How Reddit Ruined the Hillary Clinton Campaign -

And yes, I'm sure someone will take issue with the site BUT the post is written by the attorney who worked with the gal that discovered Oh Shit Guy's Reddit posts -

"All of this was caused by the amazing sleuthing of a student majoring in eDiscovery and litigation, then promoted by a Twitter parody account, then expanded upon and disseminated by an army of Reddit users. Nothing can be weirder than this election, but I hope this article proves that this revelation didn’t involve a “conspiracy” between Putin and Trump—it was simply the crowdsourced efforts of people who are sick and tired of Hillary Clinton’s corruption and cover-ups."

Some may also wish to checkout this post "The Hidden Smoking Gun: the Combetta Cover-Up"

Some are speculating that this newly found material is why she canceled her NC fundraiser on Tuesday and has all but disappeared from the campaign trail.

And I concur, she has lost this election by her own doing. The anger and frustration she exudes in the vid to the very people expected to volunteer for GOTV calls and rally's, poll watchers, transporting voters to the polls and so much more shows the depth of the cocoon she's living in. That's the real Hillary, btw. She is totally detached and out of touch with her base.

Posted by: h | Sep 23 2016 15:04 utc | 18

Heh I have been banging on about this for ages and now it is MS. The polls play catch-up; not because they are rigged though that is definetly easy to do (and some might be I wouldn’t know) but because the polls are run by hangers-on to the PTB, establishment types who cater to their brethen that can afford the fees and have expectations concerning the result.

The methods used are deficient, there is a subconscious / old regulatory element in play, the rules are thus, the procedure is this, the automatic machine analysis (which nobody except some rare top dogs understand, statistics is a lost art/science) churns out these results, etc.

To not loose credibility for evah, they have to adjust a bit, get real, and start getting with what is going on. In fact the polls (in the main, carried out by independent biz. who charge for their services) are better than, but can be compared to, the BLS who spew out meaningless numbers that don’t reflect the employment situation in the USA. No doubt at the BLS hordes of employees are busy following the directives and the laid-down calc. procedures and so on, but they churn out fantasy numbers in favor of a political imperative. We make our own reality is getting not only tired, old but a point or rebellion. Other measures (GDP) are just as bad.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 23 2016 15:07 utc | 19

@jfl #10

I'm from The Hague, so I can't vote.

Demonising of Russia and Putin must stop.
Direct or indirect training and weaponising jihadis must stop.
In that respect the only hope seems Trump.
And that's why US citizens have an obligation to the World: Vote for Trump (otherwise Clinton wins)

If there is one country in the World that needs regime change, it is the USA.
15 years of warmongering neocons is enough!

Posted by: From The Hague | Sep 23 2016 15:16 utc | 20

@13 f11b

Yeah. You can buy either animal or strike out on your own. But I was really teasing fth, who doesn't have a vote in the American election because he is not an American, though heavily invested in Trump, apparently. I wonder if he votes for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. He'd be the Trump analogue, right?

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 15:18 utc | 21

Who gives a flying fart about this election or either of the establishment's offerings. Unfortunately voting by the American electorate will only bestow legitimacy on a corrupt system of management by those that hide in the shadows and conduct the business of 'national interest' as it were their own. The Republic is dead! Replaced with an Imperial executive to which all political power and all the levers of power have been given under the original Continuity of Government Act declaration on 9/11, which suspends the Constitution in whole or part under secret clauses. This Act has been renewed ever since, including recently by Obama, now labeled as a 'State of Emergency'. Under a SoE all political power is entrusted to the executive branch under the President who assumes all power. They just have not informed the public on what is entailed when a SoE is declared. The President has become a figurehead, taking orders from the wealthy oligarchs, and either exalted or to be dismissed by a Praetorian Guard, whose commanders in the military security surveillance complex are in the pay of these same oligarchs.Congress is now a redundant body playing a farcical role in a grotesque pantomime of Republicanism. This state of affairs is largely repeated to varying degrees throughout western civilization or wherever the western oligarch's sphere of influence extends.

Posted by: BRF | Sep 23 2016 15:18 utc | 22

Lies by Trump?As far as I know,I haven't seen any,maybe some walk back on off the cuff stuff,but remember any news of Trump comes from serial liars who own the MSM,and there is not one MSM news outlet in America pro Trump,and that includes Fox.
Any accusing lies promoted by serial liars should not be taken as truth.
First axiom in know your enemy.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 23 2016 15:19 utc | 23

@20 fth, 'If there is one country in the World that needs regime change, it is the USA. 15 years of warmongering neocons is enough! '

I certainly agree with you there but I don't believe Donald Trump is any change at all. If he loses you'll be telling me forever that it's all my fault for not voting for Trump. That's your privilege. Unfounded though. If Trump wins I won't be able to hold you responsible, will I? You're just a transoceanic gadfly looking for people to bite for free.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 15:26 utc | 24

17;Yes,I like that,smoke the hive of zion,the borg of our discontent.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 23 2016 15:32 utc | 25

In his co-conference with Clinton with some military people, Trump talked about the generals being reduced to "rubble," and said more or less openly he would fire generals who couldn't deliver. Trump is running on a platform of winning wars, as in conquering the people instead of just flying over a wasteland created by bombing. He is not the peace candidate. He is MacArthur versus Hilary's Truman.

Worse than that, demonizing Clinton's foreign policy is making alibis for the real author of the last eight years' catastrophes, Barack Obama. The US has just openly attacked Syrian forces in alliance with Islamic State. Just today I read more boasts of supposedly preemptive attacks, which means unprovoked, by the highly unstable south Korean state on the north. NATO is moving troops into eastern Europe while preparing for war. Trump has no problem with this, and pretending Clinton is somehow going to be worse is more or less insane.

As for the liar thing? Trump did not get billions by being honest. The Clintons pay taxes, which is probably more than you can say for Trump.

You cannot vote against someone. Either you vote for someone who actually ran for some of the things you want, or your vote against Trump or Clinton will be read as support for things you don't want. If you're against the US attacks on the world, then you need to vote for someone like Gloria La Riva or Jerry White. (Who? You ask. Precisely.) They at least know that invading other countries is not just a deplorable vice, but business. Trump is for business, just like Clinton.

Posted by: s | Sep 23 2016 15:44 utc | 26

jfl speaking:

I wonder if he votes for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

You're just a transoceanic gadfly looking for people to bite for free

He's no more than a worthless name-calling rattler.

Posted by: From The Hague | Sep 23 2016 15:57 utc | 27

Seems a few people are unaware of the fundamental policy of the Outlaw US Empire: Attain Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people as spelled out in its own publications--Vision 2010 and Vision 2020. Clinton is the one wanting to further that goal; Trump is not. Neither will actually pursue the interests of the citizenry--only Stein and the Greens have stated they will. The only neocon I can think of that's as ugly as Clinton is Cheney.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 23 2016 16:07 utc | 28

Washington Times:

Hillary Clinton has experience fighting terrorism, all right: As a failure

Posted by: virgile | Sep 23 2016 16:07 utc | 29

Thank you, kind sir. Hillary is a bad news bear. One columnist at descibed her as a "moral mosster," (tED RALL THE CARTOONIST)She is a neocon;. Any country that is not run by US coporations and whose leaders do not contribute to the Clinton Foundation may be bombed... I do not ave any speakers hooked up to my Pc, so I didn't have to listen to her... There are some great new cartoons caLLed Masha and the Bear - from the dreaded Russia... EXCEllent. Mentioned on news a douple of months ago... RT is one of the best news shows in the world.

Posted by: james k. sayre | Sep 23 2016 16:10 utc | 30

I really don't know if Bernie get the office, he could confront the neocon establishment already installed in Washington... everybody believed that Obama could do something, he even get the Nobel Prize in advance, and we see now the disaster to have a weak president there...

besides, Bernie have strong connections with the jewish establishmet also...

Posted by: Dario | Sep 23 2016 16:19 utc | 31

@Dario #30:

everybody believed that Obama could do something

Not really. When he first ran for president, Obama didn't really hide that he was a status quo candidate, the hope and change rhetoric notwithstanding. He said that Iraq was "the wrong war", meaning that Afghanistan is the right and a just war. And unlike John Edwards, he was against single payer health care even while he was fighting for the Democratic nomination. I voted for him anyway, because McCain is a decrepit old fool.

But I don't think that anyone imagined how awful as POTUS Obama would turn out to be. For example, who would have guessed that having a black president would actually worsen race relations in the country? I'm sure that wouldn't have happened with a populist black president, like Jessie Jackson.

@dahoit #12:

And BS is toast,he lost his mojo the second he capitulated to the thief who stole his election


Posted by: Demian | Sep 23 2016 16:38 utc | 32

I rather like the suggestion: "Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency."
Tulsi Gabbard is one of the few people in Congress that is not a crook or an idiot, and who understands the existential threat posed by nuclear war.

Posted by: Perimetr | Sep 23 2016 16:43 utc | 33

Ppl are actually writing about voting for that or that figure, Clinton, Trump, third party, Wilders, in different contexts / countries? Like their personal expression on Facebouk *likes* expressed in a vote has some import or validity or will be even ever taken into account? (My posts about predictions of the vote in the US are at another level.)

It is all a complete sham, a circus, but I guess, what else can one do, how can one live? Ppl need to hang onto their afforded, allowed, 'ersatz' agency, the dot power of one vote one perso opinion is built-in, deliberately, and as managed by the MSM and Diebold (other..) is just a scam, a confidence trick. I like Jill Stein, fine, no results.

Remember for ex. the massive w-wide protests, biggest ever, agsint the invasion of Iraq, which had no effect on events at all.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 23 2016 16:49 utc | 34

To my mind, the biggest danger the US faces is someone who can distract the electorate for another term with foreign entanglements. Opposition is organizing across the left/right spectrum and the depth of the legitimacy crisis is growing with each day of the Dollary Clump Campaign.

I agree that Trump is a much more attractive lier, but his "abolish the EPA my first day in office" expresses a death wish for the species I can't reconcile with. Such stupidity, however and unlike WW3, is survivable and from Trump has the look of a forward bargaining position, but who can know? Kill us fast or kill us slow? At least with slow the body may awake before its dead and try to save itself.

Posted by: jsn | Sep 23 2016 17:17 utc | 35

@33 Noirette,

Yes Noirette you are at a different level than all the rest of us. Let me guess, higher?

And I have a guy from the Hague telling me that it's my moral duty to vote for Donald Trump. Lunacy. Sheer lunacy.

We should all realize that resistance is futile and give up, along with you on your higher level. Above it all.

I guess we all do tell ourselves whatever it is we need to hear to keep on going.

Posted by: jfl | Sep 23 2016 17:21 utc | 36

Trump has John Bolton as one of his foreign policy advisors. He is likely to become Sec. of State if Trump wins.

He is more keen on war than Clinton if that is possible. And it's hughly likely Trump will listen to him. Even if he doesn't he will hold enough power to make an impact.

No matter who wins it is likely the wars will continue.

Posted by: Bob | Sep 23 2016 17:22 utc | 37

As to Trump's potential cabinet picks, what's been said is nothing more than media speculation, particularly the promotion of Bolton by neocon-based media. Given that former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's Trump's main Foreign Policy advisor is an arch adversary of Bolton, I very much doubt there's any credibility in what's being written in media. And the hype surrounding Bolton as SoS reached its peak at the end of August with very little being said since.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 23 2016 17:36 utc | 38

Oh jeez Tulsi Gabbard another invention of the CIA connected to hari krishna cults and everything you'd expect from a poltician made in the same factory as Barack Obama, fake deracinated unrecognizable name and all.

Posted by: C I eh? | Sep 23 2016 17:40 utc | 39

To 24: Russians are expert beekeepers. Watching Lavrov smoke the hive is recompense for having endured ZIO-scum clowns low these many years and election cycles. Ever notice Russians tend to speak in allegory? It's very powerful for those who get it. Like Putin saying the USSR didn't need to be destroyed -- just reformed. He could easily be talking about the USSA. Sorta-kinda messaging those who may be listening.

I don't pretend to know all the answers. Good consultants tend to know the right questions. And focus on the real issues. Not ones fabricated to avert ones attention. Not ones with too much smoke. And many mirrors.

Posted by: Take Me | Sep 23 2016 17:41 utc | 40

I was encouraged in one of the latest threads where another commenter poked their head up and politely stated my ongoing big picture view of everything we see, and don't see, going on being related to machinations of the global plutocratic families and their private finance, corporate, military, government and indebted to the gills toadies.

Each and every comment and posting needs to focus on connecting the dots to the real controllers of humanity. They are trying hard now to hide behind the latest wag the dog event and gibberish from their toadies. We need to banish ignorance that leads folks to think that Trump would change America for the better instead of turning it into the war machine that Hitler wanted. Trump is an indebted toadie with megalomaniac tendencies.

Clinton II has brain issues and as someone who has spent the past 10+ years healing from a TBI, it is obvious to me that she is really hurt. As a personal aside to that, I am 21 sessions into neurofeedback therapy which is healing my bicycle crash TBI and 60 so years of living in vegus nerve flight/freeze fear. True to my name I will predict that is less than 50 years, if we don't really go off the rails that neurofeedback therapy will be used by almost all humans to better themselves.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 23 2016 17:53 utc | 41

No one in their right mind should vote for Hillary Clinton, regardless of your feelings about Trump. There is not only a trail of corruption a mile long with money from Saudi Arabia and other shady places, but a real threat to the world as we know it in the form of her warmongering. It appears Hillary and people like George Soros want to flood the world with refugees after the blow up countries, thereby giving the government reason to form a police state. The eventual goal seems to be globalization in the form of one government for one world.

Thats if we survive the nuclear holocaust that would take place if we attack Russia which no one wants. We need to forge closer with Russia as we share some common interests and common enemies. No one wants to watch the world burn so the elites can gain more power. The people are tired of it. It should never have gotten to the point where its at in America. Its on a bad course. This election is the most important of our lifetimes as its really for the fate of the human race as we know it

Posted by: Danny801 | Sep 23 2016 17:57 utc | 42

Whoever wins will be seen as illegitimate by half of the country. America is entering terminal stage, regardless the outcome of this race. With Trump you get the horrible end, with Clinton - endless horror. I'd vote for Trump.

Posted by: telescope | Sep 23 2016 18:23 utc | 43

When Hillary loses, we'll be treated to a bevy of thought-pieces on how only the suppressed-but-all-too-real power of male chauvinism separated her - "the clearly better qualified candidate" - from the prize that she deserved. If Bernie Sanders' milquetoast coffee shop social democrat youths could be successfully re-cast as racist, chair throwing "Bernie Bros," then anything is possible. Anyone left of Mussolini who has any spine at all (if such people exist) will be "Naderized" pretty heavily. The only advantage of the Olympics vs. national elections is that the former, while replete with much the same sort of rancid schmaltz and mind-killing banality as the latter, is mercifully short by comparison.

Posted by: Martin Finnucane | Sep 23 2016 18:31 utc | 44

All this is on the assumption that votes count in American "elections," which is pure nonsense. The votes are fixed always. Besides, the same money owns both parties and the media (and practically everything else) so what difference does it make who is put in office (not elected)? None. Words are meaningless coming from a political prostitute's mouth.
The American election has NOTHING to do with what goes on in Syria. Everything that happens there which is done by the U.S. is done on orders of the Rothschild cabal in its City of London, the owners of the U.S. and almost every other nation in the world today. Rothschild's neo cons carry the orders into action. None of it is random. All of it is part of their plot.
However, the Russians may have a better plot - simply tell the truth and then act upon it.

Posted by: Tony B. | Sep 23 2016 18:39 utc | 45

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump wins. Voters for Trump are much like voters for Brexit in Britain. A blind fury against what is being done to them by neo-liberal banksterism. Which is manifested in racism and xenophobia.

All are being lied to, and they won't achieve what they want.

It's a sort of popular revolt against neo-liberal corporatism, which expects consumers to buy, but exports the jobs which might furnish the income for consumption to China. In the end, corporate chiefs will understand that people have to have income in order to be able to spend, but not now.

Now we have blind revolt against poverty. The same in de-industrialised Ohio as in post-industrial Wales. In the latter case, they were being heavily funded by the EU for reconstruction, but they still voted for Brexit. Trump in Ohio much the same.

Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 23 2016 18:49 utc | 46

Yes Noirette you are at a different level than all the rest of us. Let me guess, higher? jfl at 36.

Higher as in better, not at all.

My posts were about my estimation of how ppl would vote and trump wll win, as the MSM, and now b, for ex, has admitted or gotten ‘on board with.’

This says nothing about individual voters and what their preferences, ideology, hopes and aspirations are and how they might have some impact.

Though to be honest I think the public is screwed, surely you would agree the choices presented are miserable. How did that come about?

Does that mean the PTB runs a false duopoly to fool everyone into voting for fake alternatives?

Could one argue - a sincere question - that HRC does represent a large part of the electorate - MIC (war party), security, big corps, media, new media, higher education and its scams, banking and banksters, health insurance etc. Big. Gov. and all the employees in there, basically the upper classes and middles?

While DT represents - or pretends to - some portions of the underclass, veterans, the left-outs, white workers in de-industralised zones, cops fighting crime, the nefarious influence of foreignors (criminals etc.), national pref. of a kind, and on an on? What a perfect split…you get the picture…

That is just one angle, and does not touch foreign policy ...

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 23 2016 18:53 utc | 47

@42 Danny

Not really the decisions are made beforehand and your vote is still irrelevant though I admit they've put on one helluva show this time around.

What you see is what you get. We will get more of the same rhetoric courtesy Council of Foreign Relations/Royal Institute Gangster Elite because the world is much easier for oligarchs and technocrats to administer under conditions of a semi real Cold War 2.0.

It does not matter who wins. Your only decision is which divisive marketing gimmick will be used to control your unreality for the next 4 years. Please grow up or go back to propaganda school.

I am no longer willing to be walked back to the same old false narratives and the 70% who don't bother voting confirm the system has zero legitimacy.

Posted by: C I eh? | Sep 23 2016 19:15 utc | 48

Neither candidate ever really address foreign policy. Cuz everyone knows all roads lead to zion. And all the switches get flipped if anyone touches that rail. So Trump reverse-messages through "dancing muslims" and "bad bad Iran deal" which serves to focus attention in a DIRECTION. Not to reality. Cuz reality might get him whacked.

We are all dancing on the edge of sanity. Having lived the very definition of insanity for more years than one cares to admit. Most can't tell the difference anymore.

All things considered. This is BEST. ELECTION. EVER.

Posted by: Take Me | Sep 23 2016 19:18 utc | 49

Adam Walinksy (JFK speechwriter):

"In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that America’s natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.
That candidate is Donald Trump."

I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for Democrats), but I expect to vote for Trump. Clinton is a certifiable nutjob when it comes to destabilizing countries like Libya and Syria, and provoking Russia. She belongs nowhere near power.

I'm afraid that Trump might behave like a loose canon with respect to Korea, and other smaller countries. That would still not be the disaster that going toe to toe with Russia would be.

Srdja Trifkovic, the brilliant foreign affairs editor for Chronicles Magazine, has given high marks to Trump for a foreign policy speech, and an "advantage Trump" for the recent commander-in-chief interview.

Last I heard, he has a non-existent replacement for Obamacare (I seriously doubt just letting companies compete across state lines will solve most of the problems), and generally seems weak regarding domestic and economic policy. Let's hope he hires good people, and is not just a good listener, but also makes good calls.

Posted by: metamars | Sep 23 2016 19:23 utc | 50


That's precisely my thoughts. Very well said. I'm not American so perhaps my voice counts for a different perspective than the domestic population but at the same time it's painfully obvious both candidates are vying for a chance to serve big business. Perhaps in slightly different ways but they both will surely bow down before most of the same powerful interests. Both have no interest in reigning in the MIC nor environmental destruction. Just look at the competition for the Israeli government's blessing.

I feel voting for either major party candidate would be simply perpetuating a broken system. Very sad state of affairs in the world. My own country is like this but perhaps not quite so in your face. It's like, I regret voting in the last election for my country's liberal party candidate because in the end he operates like the conservative incumbent just with a different face. In the USA it's much more bold faced though.

Trump may be somewhat of a wildcard but I wouldn't count on him being much different in the end if he indeed wins the election. Who he's already surrounded himself with in the Republican party is very telling and doesn't exactly point to change in my eyes.

Posted by: FecklessLeft | Sep 23 2016 19:48 utc | 51

"Why aren't I 50 points ahead of Trump?" The assumptions and arrogance that HRC has based on her talking points are funny. Demoncraps and Rethuglicans love euphemisms. Right to Life = pro-abortion. Right to Work = anti-union. So HRC's reaching out to unions? Not many of those left. They've been destroyed by having so much of manufacturing offshored. HRC's switched her talk on TPP but we know her record along with that of both parties. The local Kroger's got a union and there's a few others but not like before. And even then it's a mixed bag like insurance. If you need them they can help but they can also protect bad workers while collecting dues for the fat cats. But DEMs gotta talk the talk.

I cannot vote for HRC. And I do not like DT. I've voted Perot, Paul, and libertarian in the past but am just sick of it all. For a while it was looking like the October surprise might be more email leaks of HRC crap. OR it could be the girl who said Trump raped her at pedophile Epstein's NYC Mansion. It's bad enough the guy flew Trump and Billy Clinton around in his Lolita Express plane and only got 15 months for his actions with an underage girl. But it looks like the team that was using the girl to destroy Trump may self-destruct of their own accord.
(like in that Tom Petty song Yer So Bad, "I can't decide which is worse.")

Posted by: Curtis | Sep 23 2016 19:49 utc | 52

So many soothsayers. Who would like to see Trump take on Hillary in

1) Chess
2) Geography Quiz, and/or
3) Pugil-stick jousting?

Putin's got bare-chested fish wrestling pretty much locked up.

Anyone remember W with his chain saw?

I'd rather watch a snail race.

Posted by: stumpy | Sep 23 2016 19:54 utc | 53

@metamars #50:

I've never voted for a Republican, ever (and maybe twice for Democrats), but I expect to vote for Trump.,

Same here. But Trump is not an orthodox Republican. If McCain, Romney, or a Bush were running against Hillary, I would vote Green, as I did in the last election.

FWIW: Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman’s book “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016” are:

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

The Dems don't have enough keys to win this election, according to Licthman. He sounds like a Republican but gives the impression that he hates Trump (but that could just be to maintain respectability with his academic colleagues).

Lichtman's system is pretty simple and assumes that an election turns around whether voters are satisfied with the performance of the incumbent party. On a basic level, common sense tells one that that is indeed what elections are about. And in this election cycle, people are fed up with the status quo. So what the Dems do is run the most status quo candidate imaginable. The way Dems hoped to get around this problem is to convince people that this is not a normal election, that Trump is beyond the pale. (Lichtman follows that line himself in that interview.)

Another factor that might come into play that I haven't seen mentioned in the mainstream press is that blacks are as fed up with the state of things as anyone. The Dem strategy of triangulation depends on getting enough demographics into their camp. But I have a feeling that Hillary will lose a lot of black votes that Obama got. They showed their loyalty to Obama by voting for Hillary in the primaries. The pressure to show that loyalty a second time is weaker, since his term is almost over.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 23 2016 20:00 utc | 54

Could one argue - a sincere question - that HRC does represent a large part of the electorate - MIC (war party), security, big corps, media, new media, higher education and its scams, banking and banksters, health insurance etc. Big. Gov. and all the employees in there, basically the upper classes and middles?
Yeah, but it's not a majority.

DT represents - or pretends to - some portions of the underclass, veterans, the left-outs, white workers in de-industralised zones, cops fighting crime, the nefarious influence of foreignors (criminals etc.), national pref. of a kind, and on an on?
There you have it. That's the majority.

Posted by: Laguerre | Sep 23 2016 20:02 utc | 55

Stumpy @ 53

How about a correct-use-of-English contest?

You'd think as a graduate of Yale Law School she would know that "Why aren't I...." is incorrect. Maybe she did know that at one time and now it's just the meds.

No fun being a grammar cop, but it"s "Why am I not...." But then as W showed, you don't have to speak standard English to be the pres.

Posted by: Ken Nari | Sep 23 2016 20:11 utc | 56

#18 - h - See also:

Posted by: John Zelnicker | Sep 23 2016 20:39 utc | 57

It's republicans like Ted Cruz who remind old school GOP you can't go home again. Good gawd.

Posted by: Take Me | Sep 23 2016 20:58 utc | 58

I agree. The sooner they draft Sanders the better. Unfortunately, today's DNC doesn't seem to care whether it wins or loses. It wants what it wants and it wants it now.
They could rack up all kinds of points with voters by pretending they are disturbed by the stolen primary and aim to do something about it.

Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Sep 23 2016 21:49 utc | 59

Long time since I've peeked in on the Moon. Noirette @ 34, you pretty much nailed my take on USian elections.

It's just a complicated game.

A little boy asked me should he put his vote upon the left, no. A little boy asked me should he put his vote upon the right, no. I say it really doesn't matter where you put your vote, Someone else will come along and move it, And it's always been the same, It's just a complicated game

Posted by: catlady | Sep 23 2016 21:56 utc | 60

For those considering not voting, please consider that your vote for Jill Stein this year could help her get to the 5% threshold that would provide funding and ballot access for the Green Party in future elections.

Posted by: lysias | Sep 23 2016 22:02 utc | 61

The economist Michael Hudson has made the excellent point that a President Trump would face, in effect, two opposition parties in Congress. So his ability to achieve his crazier policies would be extremely limited. He would likely be a one term POTUS, and during that term the American people would be afforded some breathing space to acknowledge how off the rails things have gotten, and some time to start to build true alternatives. Clinton delivers more of the same with the attendant illusion of normality which provided cover for Obama. More of the same means direct confrontation with Russia and China.

Posted by: jayc | Sep 23 2016 22:09 utc | 62

@60 We're voting for Stein for this reason.

Posted by: beq | Sep 23 2016 22:15 utc | 63

@ 37

Every time John Bolton even looks like he is going to open his mouth and talk he should be slapped in the mouth, right into next week. Lunatic.

Posted by: Tom in AZ | Sep 23 2016 22:50 utc | 64

Today's headline in Daily Telegraph: Ted Cruz endorses Donald Trump months after calling him 'pathological liar', 'utterly amoral' and 'serial philanderer'

On foreign policy, I agree with Bob, John Bolton projects "strength", a quality that Trump admires most. And what is a better way to unveil the plan to smash ISIS than to bellow it walrus style, something that Bolton can do better than anyone?

According to the recent energetic advertisements of Trump, he will quickly fix the security problems that are nightmare to us all. Raise the draw bridges, place monsters in the moat and burn all the witches. And create a gazillion of jobs by cutting taxes. And fix the ISIS problem is a still unspecified manner.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 23 2016 22:58 utc | 65

Nope. The millenials/meme generation/literally everyone under 30, the SJWs young and old, the MIC horde(who btw are the current class with the most to lose with a vote against the status quo, and friggin YUGE in number since this is the only remaining growth industry), the "military"; well the ones who want to keep their jobs, retirees who remember who Trump really is, everyone in higher education, big Pharma, "liberals"....

The people voting for Trump are the isolated, vanilla nouveau rich; a few Hollywood pundits, and racist retirees.

I visit enough of the normal internet and the real street to know this, no poll will reflect it, and you can't predict anything based on rallies, pundits, or even the actions and personalities of the candidates themselves. FEAR is what sells Hillary, not her personality or lack of. Everyone is afraid of Russia, etc bc of the current regime's lies. And by regime I mean the media, too. Hell there are two documentaries at the top of NEtflix's list right now glorifying the Nazis in Ukraine and the White Helmets farce in Syria. Five Star rated. Literally every current show on TV and most films find a way to reference scary Russia. The "savvy" TV watcher is WITH HER to the point that they can laugh off her collapsing in public like it's no big deal!!

The "non-interventionist left" is literally in the few thousands at most. Hell half of us are here on this board.

Anyway it doesn't matter. The officials/spinmeisters will stay, just like Obama kept Bush's people. Trump will fall in line if he hasn't already, and when they show him the MIC balance sheets he'll be just as much if not more "ALL IN" than Clinton. He's already pushing for and even more fascistic police force.

She'll have to keel over permanently for Trump to win. Even if he wins by a hair, there will be malfeasance.

Prez *cough* Hil.

Posted by: sejomoje | Sep 23 2016 23:33 utc | 66

The words that come out of Hillary's mouth, would have to be spoken by someone else, to be believed. She is totally maxed out on her lack of credibility. The Clintons sold out working people a long time ago.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 23 2016 23:38 utc | 67

"There is some Hail Mary chance for the Democrats to still win. Immediately retire Clinton for medical reasons. Draft Sanders and offer Tulsi Gabbard the vice-presidency."

Yeah, good to see some out-of-the-box thinking, especially when it reflects my multiple comments on this august blog going back to February when I predicted Hilton will bow out or be knocked out and Biden will step in. I'm stickin' to that prediction.

But at this point Sanders is a lot farther out of the box than Biden, and I like that. Maybe a side-deal with Sanders is the way the Democrats shut him up.


“Electing Trump is a blind dart throw with unpredictable results. But that still feels better than to again see a Clinton in the White House.”

I tend to agree. Hilton would probably be less disastrous for the domestic side of things, what with 3-4 USSCt nominations coming up and the whole racism/illegal migrants pot about to boil over. But Hilton is Yisrael’s goy-to girl and her history in the ME is almost as frightening as her threats for a NFZ in Syria. She is to Netanyahu as Monica is to Bilton.

I can almost see TheDonald going into the-art-of-the-deal mode and telling Netanyahu no more playing softball, if you want the $38 billion get your fucking fat ass in line with Palestine.

If Biden steps in, it’s election over. Bernie, I don't know. I don’t think the country is going to elect a septuagenarian Jew ideologue over a septuagenarian Queens blow-hard with bad hair.

Posted by: Denis | Sep 23 2016 23:41 utc | 68

Putin and a pike

Putin and a tiger.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 23 2016 23:42 utc | 69

no matter how much it shouts
no matter if it is alive or dead
nsa spielberg lucas vision computer simulation
to saturn infinity
or body double thinner look alike e
she it cannot win a race or a fight

No One Beats Al Qaeda

The US has tried for years to beat Al Qaeda, but now, after Americans have given up much freedom to central government and borrowed trillions of dollars from central banks, there is more terrorism than ever before. Nevertheless, don’t blame the FBI or the CIA, or Bush or Obama. There is no shame in being beaten by the best.

Al Qaeda must be at least a generation ahead of the US – both strategically and technologically.

In fact, the only weakness of Al Qaeda is that they keep leaving their passports at the crime scene, but consider that their passports are indestructable. America simply doesn’t have the technology yet to make indestructable passports, so clearly, those Al Qaeda scientists in those caves in Afghanistan are at least a generation ahead of the US. Al Qaeda passports are so tough that they were found on the street after the towers collapsed – unscathed. Maybe this doesn’t sound as scary as it should … until one considers that none of the four black boxes were recovered from the towers. So, America’s most indestructable technology (black boxes) were vaporized under conditions where Al Qaeda passports survived – unscathed. It’s not as if American black boxes are crap either (they have never been completely destroyed before); it’s that Al Qaeda technology is just that good.

What other possible explanation could there be? It’s almost as if …

See what I mean about strategic brilliance? Al Qaeda almost tricked me into considering whether 9/11 could be an inside job, and whether those Al Qaeda scientists in those Afghan caves are not really a generation ahead of the US, but an inside job is clearly impossibe because the CIA is not allowed to operate inside the US.

The evidence for Al Qaeda superiority is overwhelming. Consider that Al Qaeda knocked down three towers with only two planes! No one else could have done that. Two planes hit two towers, and then a third tower (WTC7) collapsed a few hours later. The NIST explained a few years later that it was an ordinary office fire that resulted in what everyone says looks exactly like a controlled demolition, but how is it that only Al Qaeda knew that WTC 7 was the only building in the world that would collapse exactly like a controlled demolition as a result of an ordinary office fire? What’s more, they somehow tricked the owner, Larry Silverstein, and John Kerry too, into claiming years earlier that we brought WTC 7 down as a controlled demolition because it was badly damaged, but how did they trick America’s best into confessing to a conspiracy that never happened? Clearly, they even have some kind of mind control.

I could go on for pages and pages, but there is one hope – Israel. Israel may lag behind Al Qaeda scientists in those Afghan caves, but their strategic brilliance may be as advaned as that of Al Qaeda, so America’s best bet is to give Israel all of our technology, and to borrow trillions more dollars and give them to Israel.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda has already thought of this, and may have successfully neutralized Israel when it tricked several Mossad agents into setting up cameras ahead of time on 9/11 and dancing with joy when the towers collapsed. Even if Al Qaeda’s preemptive move has made it politically impossible to give everything to Israel, at least Israel is our strongest ally in the region and is thus far more important than before 9/11 …

Posted by: charlesdrake | Sep 23 2016 23:45 utc | 70

she makes Nixon seem cuddly.

Posted by: stevelaudig | Sep 23 2016 23:56 utc | 71

The Democrats would have to be out of their stinking minds to put Biden in the running. He is a political dinosaur, erratic in his speech, mean spirited, and is fit to charm no one. He is probably senile. He has an irrational hatred for Putin, so don't count on surviving a Biden presidency, either. Since Sanders was swindled out of the nomination, it would only be the decent thing to do, to give him the nomination, since he at least received a huge number of votes.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 23 2016 23:56 utc | 72

Sanders has discredited himself. He really WAS a sheepdog!

Evil vs. awful? Why not vote Green?

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

Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice
-- Martin Luther King

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 23 2016 23:59 utc | 73

We can go on democracy or we can go for make believe. The people have the right to make mistakes, which seems evident, as they are about to put Trump in the White House.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 24 2016 0:04 utc | 74

Everyone needs to vote their conscience. I'm voting, not just for Jill, but straight ticket Green.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 24 2016 0:18 utc | 75

Amen to that...

Posted by: x | Sep 24 2016 0:20 utc | 76

@73 Copeland,

US citizens have been turning a toy steering wheel for so long, being assured with certainty their whole lives that it's connected to and controls the front wheels. A little over-reaction when the wheel actually does something for once is understandable and expected.

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 24 2016 0:21 utc | 77

@74 Copeland,

Furthermore, there is a good case to be made that a Trump win means a better chance for the left in 2020, in either case assuming the US and its people survive through the term.

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 24 2016 0:28 utc | 78

After watching Rouhani and Lavrov speeches at the UN it struck me just how inane the US system is that it cannot present a lucid and logical argument through it's political elite. Seriously. The best we can have is Kerry's and Power's emotive obfuscation that is neither cogent nor persuasive. The US is losing its shorts based on rhetoric alone. Remember Kennedy's little photo collection of Cuban countryside littered with missile launchers? Or the Shock and Awe Hour on CNN, live from Baghdad?

How far we've come.

Posted by: stumpy | Sep 24 2016 0:33 utc | 79

Clinton and the Democratic party have lost the base, possibly forever. Counting on the war loving, anti-worker, reactionary "center" is the poison the Democrats swallowed. Both the Republican and the Democratic party are damaged beyond repair and this whole "democracy" fraud is wearing thinner than ever.

Posted by: tSinilats | Sep 24 2016 0:41 utc | 80

US President has to be at least 36. The same law may not apply to VP, but Tulsi Gabbard is 35.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Sep 24 2016 0:42 utc | 81

Did you all catch Netanyahu's UN address? It was more Warner Bros cartoonery of course put notably, only the US, and a few puupets like Jordan and Egypt were there to listen to him. So it was like a standup comedian performing to a packed audience his family and and like 2 friends.

Posted by: sejomoje | Sep 24 2016 0:51 utc | 82

Didn't someone say that about the fascists in Germany? "Oh, Hindenberg, von Papen, and the army will keep him in line." I'm not saying Trump is a fascist (still at the theory and not practice of mass violence), but he is a volatile and dangerously delusional demagogue.

Hasn't anybody ever heard of the notion of "The Imperial Presidency"? I mean, Arthur Schlesinger only wrote a damn best-seller on it.

Assuming, bizarrely, that he can't ginger up enough Tea Partiers to ram his agenda through (they effectively run the House), he still has plenty of executive authority and will find more than enough ambitious hacks to do his bidding in the Trump "Administration." The Presidential limo should be a clown car.

And further assuming, contra to sejomoje fine exposition at 65, he oddly enough gets elected. The last I saw, he still fails in the Electoral College, despite The Duckhead's rise in the polls.

I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again.

Trump could easily fuck up, and get us all killed. Could he be impeached before he did serious damage? Who knows?

For real change, don't vote Orange. Or Greeen. Vote Red.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 24 2016 0:55 utc | 83

Art II, Sec. 1, US Constitution:

". . .neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years . . ."

Posted by: AntiSpin | Sep 24 2016 0:56 utc | 84

Years ago, during the Bush v. Gore debates, the sound was off on the TV and my wife (who doesn't follow politics) made the remark: "Gore is going to lose". I asked her why she thought so and she said "Bush seems very comfortable with who he is, Gore doesn't look like it" (this was after the bit where Gore charged the podium and Bush looked back, a bit surprised and amused.
The point is this: I have come to believe that debates are won and lost largely on visuals - it's like a cattle auction. The one with the greatest presence, the poise, the body language and the one you feel comfortable with is the one that wins. The media may care deeply about whether the candidate correctly identified some obscure Iraqi general, but the public doesn't really care.
It will be an interesting debate to see (I'm tempted to watch it with the sound off).

Posted by: ian | Sep 24 2016 1:14 utc | 85

>95% of us would do better with Greens.

Too many people are blinded by emotional issues that the duopoly uses to divide us.

George Carlin: they don't want well-educated critical thinkers

The four horsemen ride together:

- greed (inequality: oligarchs)

- zealotry (sectarianism/fundamentalism)

- ignorance (often expressed as "hope")

- cruelty (militarism, extreme poverty)

Evil reinforces evil and unchecked, leads to Orwell's chilling outlook: "a boot stamping on a human face - forever".

The duopoly is a shell game. The more focused one is on finding the lesser-evil pebble, the less one is aware that they are being played. And the more that is lost, the more eager are the dupes to play again.

It may be that nothing changes until the 'reset' (the point at which the "music stops" and failure can no longer be covered up) but still, I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 24 2016 1:26 utc | 86

@82 rufus magister,

That's liberalism's fault, not the left's. They're the religious wackadoos trying to build a bourgeois utopia, not us! You and I both know the liberal State is a self-enforcing fraud designed to manage the affairs of (and only of) the bourgeoisie and their property.

Posted by: Jonathan | Sep 24 2016 1:28 utc | 87

Yeah, vote green and be part of the great .5%.
Jill Stein, you gotta be kidding.

Posted by: Casowary Gentry | Sep 24 2016 2:19 utc | 88

@rm #82

I repeat -- do not blow shit up, like the political system, if you do not know where the pieces will land (and on whom), and how to put them back together again.


I'm in Uncle Sambo's dominion, too, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the whole stinkin' show needs to be blown up, like that scene in Platoon when the suicide bomber runs into the command room of the Americans during the night raid. Beauty scene...and their faces! If Trump wants to 'splode the whole thing, perhaps for the reason the Frontline feature asserts of him being lampooned at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, then I'm just dandy with that. Besides, your scaremongering of The Big Orange One, intermixed with...oh wait, your whole post is that. Pure, unadulterated scaremongering. Have you even looked at his opponent and that prospect? I see you have warmth for the Russians in Donetsk, so why wouldn't you want to take a chance with Trump? He has repeated his respect for Russia and their leadership, DESPITE the negative effect that the fruits of propaganda in recent years would entail. He has gone out on a limb for Russia. And I respect that.

At the very least, I have heard someone mention, maybe on the Saker boards, that Donald will be so inept (perhaps due to gridlock) that he will effectively freeze the gears of empire. I'm sure several Generals, as he says, would appreciate that, knowing that suicide is on the horizon with Hillary. Get out of here with that "Donald's small fingers on the red button" thing, Rufus. Take it back to Slate.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Sep 24 2016 2:22 utc | 89

sum truths
killery 9 and 11 disclosure

so so so
soros sweats

Posted by: cdrake | Sep 24 2016 2:47 utc | 90

Look at who likes Trump: Israel Shamir.

Democracy’s Last Chance

More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.

Russia with its very limited democracy is still better off: their nobility of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections, though they are still heavily represented in the government.

The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump, is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 24 2016 2:54 utc | 91

I haven't seen this link shared from ZH which is a fairly big hole blown in the cover of the "Oh Shit" IT guy for ClintonII

It only took a woman two days of poking around to show proof of intent that the FBI says does not exist.

What is next? This sure seems like a smoking gun to me. What will our Wag the Dog world bring us next week?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 24 2016 4:00 utc | 92

Of course the person who presented herself as Hillary Clinton at her Greensboro rally was only a double. Hillary has also appeared since. Quite baffling.

In case you're up to challenging your a priori denial of conspiracies, here's some visual evidence: This is a video of the entire rally. Under "settings" choose a speed of .25, then go to :46-:49 where you can clearly see the profile of the double. As she continues her entrance you will see some breaking up of her image, which suggests that the woman and her audience were "greenscreened" together. At :53 her nose disappears against the white stripe of the flag & there's an anomaly w her hand. You can look at all the detail on this vid if you’re interested, but for me it was enough to just look in a relaxed manner at this “Hillary” @ 8.

Here's Hillary-- blue eyes, older woman

Since Greensboro Hillary has appeared a few times, but the Greensboro double replaced her at Orlando. This time the image was simply kept a bit fuzzy, so that no detailed view of her was possible. She may now be wearing blue contacts. Press Conference after Greensboro @ 4:46-4:48 profile nose of Dble 2 Also 7:56- Go to settings & set speed to .25; then stop it precisely at 9:06 to see Double2's profile against dark blue. Her nose presents a smaller angle to the face; that is, her nose doesn't slant as far away from her face as does Hillary's. The tip of the nose is not smooshed upward a bit like Hillary's. She is more slender than Hillary.

Double2 is a younger woman, flesh above outer part of eyes doesn't droop, she has fewer wrinkles on neck and face. Her smile creases are different than Hillary's: Hillary's describe a U under her cheeks, with a wrinkle-line extending up to her crow's feet. Hillary's smile-line extends to the middle of her cheek. Hillary's teeth are different, not great.

Double does well at imitating some of the speech mannerisms and the voice isn't too far off. She's a more effective speaker, lacking bitchiness in her tone.

It IS fairly unbelievable that they would do this, yes I'll grant you that. Some of us are able to see the evidence of our eyes even when we are unable to construct an explanation-- especially an acceptable one-- for it.

Posted by: Penelope | Sep 24 2016 4:43 utc | 93

@Penelope #92:

Well, that's the most compelling argumentation for why there must be a double I've seen. But the first time I ran across the double hypothesis, the argument that was made was that there was no medical explanation for how Hillary could have recovered so quickly and strikingly after her 9/11 collapse. But I think that her having Parkinson's and getting a dose of L-DOPA after her collapse/seizing up explains her quick recovery.

Isn't one cause of looking older poor muscle tone? And might Parkinson's not also produce poor muscle tone? So maybe why one Hillary looks younger than another Hillary is that the first Hillary recently got an L-DOPA dose.

Sorry I'm not watching the videos you linked to, but I've had enough of looking at Hillary for a while.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 24 2016 5:19 utc | 94

The requests for early / vote by mail ballots (two million some) in Florida show a majority for Republicans:

Rep 43% Dem 37% Independent 17% Other 2%


Posted by: Noirette | Sep 24 2016 7:28 utc | 95

I think she was being sarcastic. She was talking to a trade union and - probably - this was not meant to become public.

The so called "right to work" is highly popular in the US. It means trade unions cannot force their membership on you when you work in unionized industries.

German trade unions never did this. When there is a strike you simply do not get paid. Union membership is kind of insurance. In industries like the car industry (or airlines, transport) employers cannot keep services running with non unionized labor.

So when Hillary turns against the "right for non union membership" she is doing something in support of the labor bureaucracy unpopular to something like 75 percent of the population. It is useless anyway as this seems state regulated.

Neither Obama nor Sanders seem to have fallen into a similar trap.

To consider voting for Trump is madness best summed up by a professor who explains why Trump's chances could be good despite his personality - but then maybe not

Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.

We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.


I think the fact that he's a bit of a maverick, and nobody knows where he stands on policy, because he's constantly shifting. I defy anyone to say what his immigration policy is, what his policy is on banning Muslims, or whoever, from entering the United States, that's certainly a factor. But it's more his history in Trump University, the Trump Institute, his bankruptcies, the charitable foundation, of enriching himself at the expense of others, and all of the lies and dangerous things he's said in this campaign, that could make him a precedent-shattering candidate.

and for some sanitiy in who to vote for

and, you know, I've seen this movie before. My first vote was in 1968, when I was the equivalent of a millennial, and lots of my friends, very liberal, wouldn't vote for Hubert Humphrey because he was part of the Democratic establishment, and guess what? They elected Richard Nixon.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 24 2016 9:39 utc | 96

@Jackrabbit #72

I wish Sanders had fought through the DNC conference, done more against the vote fraud (no exit polls in CA primary, hmmmmm....), and then accepted Jill Stein's generous offer to soldier on, as a Green Presidential candidate. But no, he wasn't just a sheepdog. See "Time to Put the Sheepdog Narrative to Sleep" @

In fact, the Dem critics of Sanders, that said he was weakening Clinton, probably have somewhat of a point. Clinton is untrusted, her unfavorables only 'worsted' by Trump....

Posted by: metamars | Sep 24 2016 11:46 utc | 97

Well, Hillary Clinton seems to self destruct.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 24 2016 12:04 utc | 98

somebody | Sep 24, 2016 8:04:38 AM | 96

I don't know about self destruct, but; that was pretty bizzare...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Sep 24 2016 12:16 utc | 99

somebody @ 98, my goodness..she didn’t realise what she was getting into? Clearly her advisors / staff etc. are just as idiotic, careless and zombied-out as she is. (See also Paul Combetta story about the e-mails.)

I saw a headline yesterday, that she plans to put inheritance tax at 65% (?), what will her potential Repub and pro-establishment type voters think of that? Yikes! (Insiders know this is just trash talk.) One might say she lost the plot because she is sick, imho she never grasped politics at all, nor computers - the internet, nor the MSM, because, hmm running a criminal enterprise is a completely different kind of biz.

Let's not forget that besides winning in dubious circumstances a Senate seat, and being nominated by Obiman (whole ugly squirming can of worms there for sure) she is a two-time loser. She lost to her rival Barak while doing all to undermine him, and then in RL lost to Sanders but won by cheats, manipulations, and fraud.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 24 2016 13:24 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.