What's to be done?

Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization of the American economy.

Thus all Americans by default and their own actions will have given her a mandate to do her will and thereby become complicit in their own economic destruction, war crimes and potentially starting world war three and a planetary thermonuclear holocaust.

Striped of all the other none issue nonsense and distractions the critical choice we are all faced with making is that simple. And one that will for all eternity weigh on our collective souls conscience.

For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016

Posted by: RayB | Oct 26 2016 8:14 utc | 1

@1 'Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016'

The answer is not voting Trump in. He will be little different from Hillary as POTUS and has a whole raft of distinctive problems of his own.

The only answer is eliminating the pre-selection mechanism that delivers the 2-candidate, elephant/jackass non-choice every election.

This is the election to do so : No to Clinton, no to Trump.

Allowing this disastrous fraud to continue would be the real failing of the American electorate.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 26 2016 8:32 utc | 2

The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world. I would also provide secret support to any indigenous anti-U.S. movement anywhere. China would support Russia as its first line of self defense."

I can't imagine blowing up part of Siberia as being the next step in your a global conflict escalation sequence. Rather, think along the lines of... A popular Pacific Island chain, should the US actually destroy large numbers of Russian military assets.

Posted by: Wwinsti | Oct 26 2016 9:00 utc | 3

@ jfl | Oct 26, 2016 4:32:57 AM | 2

Why are you still beating on that worn out tin drum of yours, Dr. Jill Stein isn't going anywhere, not even if she politically walks on water. You keep at it like the dog in a manger, gnawing on the remains of some desiccated bone. What you (and others maintaining your OPINIONS) have become is stool pigeons to land some herd of discontents into the position of self inflicted voter suppression, their votes without effect on the outcome of the election. If you and the others weren't so completely innumerate, you would realise the first division in the election was between elegible participants and non-participants. Of the participants only voters for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will decide the eventual winner (with the highly probable event of assisted voting machine fraud). All other votes are the effete delusions of some morally deranged cult. There Is No Alternative (TINA) is the illusion of your political kindred is saying there is an alternative. You cannot point out even one city commission in the top thousand that either the 'Greens' or 'Libertarians' exercise control over, at best there may be a Communist mayor somewhere in that number. If perchance Dr Stein were to win, where is the political support necessary to conduct governance at any level? No your ideas come from Walt Disney directly - they are cartoon delusions. You need to carry a warning whenever you express your opinions, like those posted on nuts - My opinion may contain delusions.

About the only ability for today's voter to have any effect on the voting system is to provide an unexpected aggregate that would draw back the curtains to expose the expectations and machinations of the vote counters. Voting as you suggest will only allow those manipulations to remain hidden - not effective voting by any measure, nor is it voting one's interests. If any of your ilk have a counter argument that will stand scrutiny, please have at it, otherwise your silence after once stating your opinion might be your best course to follow.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26 2016 9:31 utc | 4

@2

While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period.

Anything else amounts to a dereliction of patriotic duty and criminal negligence.

The idea that there is any real "choice" here to be had, other than doing what's of a critical necessity at this point in time, is totally delusional in and of itself buying into the illusion that we have any real freedom of choices here. Sorry we don't have that luxury.

We don't have a choice, other than to resister our protest vote against the political establishment which clearly doesn't want to see Trump win the presidency of the US empire under any circumstances.

Given how close trump has gotten to within the reach of taking real power as commander in chief of the worlds most powerful imperial empire, the deep state and political establishment will make sure that, that threat will never happen again, if they even allow him to live very much longer.

So no second chances here for us all in another 4-8 years down the road, nor for all the men, women and children victims to be killed by wars in all the countries Hillary has set her cross-hair sights on as soon as she takes control of the entire state apparatus from the white house.

Time to get off our asses and get real here, and back on the right side of history, if but for once in our lifetimes.

Talk is cheep but action is not. As in Trump's Gettysburg address he said "we have now crossed the Rubicon" and heaven or hell there's no going back to the status quo, as he's already declared war on the corrupt state department, the media and the whole of the elite's political establishment.

So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you are fighting on.

Posted by: RayB | Oct 26 2016 10:25 utc | 5

The paper of Trump's son in law tells it as it is.

According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook’s assistant, to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed his legitimacy as a candidate. WikiLeaks’ release shows that it was seen as in Clinton’s best interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. “We think our goals mirror those of the DNC,” stated the memo, attached to the email under the title “muddying the waters.”

The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” the memo noted.

Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election.

In June, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released an opposition research dossier on Trump, dated December 19, 2015. Coincidentally, no other opposition research dossiers were released by Guccifer 2.0 from the DNC hacks.

It was in the best interest of Clinton, and therefore the Democratic Party, that Trump was the Republican presidential nominee. Polls indicated Sen. Rubio, Gov. Kasich, or almost any other establishment Republican would likely beat Clinton in a general election. Even Cruz, who is reviled by most Republicans, would still maintain the ability to rally the Republican Party—especially its wealthy donors—around his candidacy. Clinton and Democrats expected the FBI investigation into her private email server would serve as a major obstacle to Clinton’s candidacy, and the public’s familiarity with her scandals and flip-flopping political record put her at a disadvantage against a newcomer. Donald Trump solved these problems.

All the Clinton campaign had to do was push the mainstream media in the general direction of covering and attacking Trump as though he was the star of the Republican presidential primaries. As the presumed Democratic nominee, whomever she decided to dignify by responding to—whether the comments were directed at her or not—would be presumed to be the spokesperson, or nominee, of the Republican Party.

“Clinton, Trump trade insults as rhetoric heats up between front-runners,” read the headline from a CNN article in September 2015. “Hillary Clinton Seizes On Donald Trump’s Remarks to Galvanize Women,” read a New York Times headline from December. Several media outlets criticized the mainstream media obsession with Trump, but despite a few concerns that the media was propping up his legitimacy as a candidate with their constant news coverage, it continued unabatedly.

The mainstream media was more than willing to do the Clinton campaign and DNC’s work for them by creating a narrative that the 2016 presidential elections was about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump.

Was Trump in on it? You decide.

Americans, you have been cheated.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 26 2016 10:31 utc | 6

@2

(Sorry typo, let's try that again)

Question being.....

"So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you fighting on?"

Posted by: RayB | Oct 26 2016 10:34 utc | 7

If you folk want to cast a protest vote, make it against ALL incumbents to National, State and local office. It is they who have allowed the country to become the political disaster it is. Protest by cleaning the political stables thoroughly.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26 2016 10:38 utc | 8

Voting for either of these people would be obscene. Voting for Trump means voting for _another_ tax cut for the rich, and for head-in-sand on global warming. Voting for Hill is voting for ... see b. Don't give approval to either. Jill is one protest vote, but protest vote somehow and then protest. The more left protest votes the better chance for a decent left major party candidate in 2020. Bernie II ...

Lesser evil voting got us President O'Drone, and President Clinton, whose right wing evils are too numerous to list. But think about President Trump w a Republican and right-wing Democrat Congress. You wanna give your voting stamp of approval on that. My guess is that Trump or Hill, doesn't matter which one gets in, will take an axe to Medicare and Social Security based on some bogus 'crisis' MSM narrative. Enough! Don't vote for these A-holes anymore.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 26 2016 10:51 utc | 9

"Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere."

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/trump-keynesian-causes-libertarian.html

The clever economic left realizes that although Trump has some of dem ebul GOP economic ideas, he's more sensible than Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: lemur | Oct 26 2016 11:04 utc | 10

@ 9

Don't you think the country has had enough of 'Moral Majority' by now? Or don't you think?

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26 2016 11:10 utc | 11

Hey T bear are you Aussie, their was a poster T bear banging on in Aussie press, quite liked your arguments as of now.
As Trump policy I predicted it (quite like Alexander Mercouris ) by 1. observation of what is said, what was not said and what you can tease out of the rest. After the 2 debate i was convinced that Trump would not declare "Assad must go " Just for this he has my consent to be POTUS.

Posted by: col | Oct 26 2016 11:28 utc | 12

I now believe that you will get your wish b. Trump will be the next US president. It has taken me until the past week to see this coming reality through the fog of the Wag the Dog media and its effects on the public.

Americans and the evolution of our species is being thrown under the bus here but who the hell cares. Patriarchy must prevail along with private finance and the former would have remained under threat by Clinton II. Don't get me wrong here, I am not a supporter of war criminal Clinton II. What I am in supportive of is moving society away from its patriarchal and private finance roots and I may now be called delusional about the prospects of such.

I am glad to be old and not have kids to worry about their future and that of the species, because what the hey, I don't have any skin in the game.

How many men are going to start introducing themselves to women by going up and grabbing their crotch? I can't wait to see.

The petri dish of society is not only overflowing, it is feeding on its own bile.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 26 2016 11:48 utc | 13

Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 7:10:37 AM | 11

Where you're confused is that thinking isn't ad hominem insults.

I would love to see rule by the moral majority. If you're in favor of the immoral minority continuing its rule, there's nothing more to discuss with me. But you have your fan boys here, so carry on.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 26 2016 12:05 utc | 14

@5

What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period.

What a mindless, reactionary statement, totally in tune with the 'official' elephant/jackass narrative ... you must pick one or the other though neither of them are to be what they claim.

Anything else amounts to a dereliction of patriotic duty and criminal negligence.

And now you're the dictator/arbitrator of all of our actions? Insisting that we vote for one or the other of these criminals, in your case Trump?

Your perscription guarantees more of the same. The 'crisis' is re-created every four years and 'requires' everyone to pick one or the other poison ... not to follow yours or your anti-particle's directions is to be 'unpatriotic and criminal'!

Better to kick the junk and go straight. Begin the journey to sobriety. A journey of a thousand miles requires a first step.

@4

There are always 3 candidates in one of our 2-party elections : the elephant, the jackass, and 'other'. The idea is to push the 'other' total ... the count of people who have seen through the bogus system and won't 'play' any longer ... a shameful 1.6% in 2012 ... above the count of either the elephant or the jackass. This is the year to strike, while the iron is hot.

You can read, so you know that's my argument, but you love to soap up and sing in the shower, so I won't disturb you.

I certainly do agree with your later point, though ...

make [your vote] against ALL incumbents to National, State and local office. It is they who have allowed the country to become the political disaster it is. Protest by cleaning the political stables thoroughly.

... POTUS is just one of the 546 at the federal level, and in each of our particular state and local circles.

Repudiate the elephant/jackass menagerie - they're hopeless - and reconstitute our government, constitute a peoples' virtual party and vote in representatives chosen from among ourselves. The larger battle is to reform the system itself ... I suggest an open election amendment in order to equip ourselves to seize and retain power, a recall, referendum, and initiative amendment in order to put the levers of power into our own hands, and a campaign finance amendment, in order to separate finance from power within our representative government. But I'm just one among 229,000,000+. Always happy to read others' suggestions.

@9 fairleft

Of course, I agree with you.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 26 2016 12:06 utc | 15

Trumps foreign policy is more sane than Clinton's...

Uh no, it isn't.

Problem with focussing on unreality as presented in NYTimes or WAPO is it starts to seem that way.

Which begs the question, why expose oneself to MK mind control media --then expect to have a 'sane' conversation about anything.

I don't normally do Veteran's Today but the zionist enemy of my zionist enemy.. is also a zionist. Ah well.

VT says Trump's real campaign HQ is in Haifa, which if you thing about it for 3 or more seconds, makes perfect sense. Read the story for a reminder you are a fish swimming in hasbara disinformation soup. The 'meat' of the story is essentially true, there are masters who tell you what to think, and there are slaves, maybe you, who have been trained from birth not to question zionist authora-tey.

No your vote does not make a difference except to legitimize 'democracy' as a cloak for the oligarchy. Wake the FU ladies and gentlemen, those few of you who aren't zionist thought control minions.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/24/wikileaks-tracked-to-haifa-trumps-real-campaign-headquarters/

Posted by: C I eh? | Oct 26 2016 12:06 utc | 16

@6

Re: "You decide".

How does the saying go?... 'oh what a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive". Hence I don't believe that if Hillary actually chose Trump to be who she ran against, that she (nor all the expert politico's around her)had any real idea of what a Pandora's box they were opening.

Same thing go's for Trump, whom I don't think understood how fate and destiney would seize him and transform his role in life into a renegade against the systemic corruption of the deep state's political establishment.

Now only a year back, I would never have thought and sooner die and be the last person on earth to be plumbing for a megalomaniac character like billionaire Trump.

But when faced with the real prospect of a criminally indictable and clinically insane, maniacal psychopathic personality like Hillary, having her finger on the red nuclear button, my instincts for survival and that of all humanity, informs my rational judgements and actions.

And that's essentially the basis on which I've decided that voting for Trump is the only sane option left to try and avert more wars and the possibility of a thermonuclear disaster.

Posted by: RayB | Oct 26 2016 12:25 utc | 17

I think b should've taken note of the Hillary camp's attempt in recent days to play down her militarism.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 12:26 utc | 18

IMO the best strategy is to vote Trump in battleground states and vote Green everywhere else.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 12:27 utc | 19

Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should be seen as electing the Republican.

But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment really does want a Hillary coronation.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 12:30 utc | 20

http://www.veteranstoday.com = Gordon Duff = Bob Foote

Stew Webb Reveals Gordon Duff's Real Identity on PressTV (5-10-15) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHNLOopOAbU

Here is an exact quote from Gordon Duff AKA Bob Foote.

“About 30% of what’s on Veterans Today is patently false. About 40% of what I write is at least purposefully partially false. Because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive. I simply have to do that.”

Posted by: Killary PAC | Oct 26 2016 12:36 utc | 21

@jfl 15 and 16 and third-partyists

Your points are good but there is no need for this vitriol: the opposing points are also good as far as they go.

You believe that a third party is the only way out of the 2-party oligarchy sham. True only if it works, which it hasn't. You are assuming that there are, or eventually would be enough voters. That argument is missing so far. Provide that evidence and you beat the lesser-evilists.

The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there aren't enough votes for a third party to win.

You both need to get that evidence before getting angry.

Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it would also attract oligarchy influence to them).

I think that your anger would be better directed at the problem (take out MSM stations and staff and oligarchy generally). Between ourselves, let's get the evidence on vote effects.

Posted by: Joe | Oct 26 2016 12:47 utc | 22

@ 19 Jackrabbit

Consider each state a 'battleground' state, there are national aggregates to consider that, if nothing else, shed light on the historical contest for future historians to inspect and pass judgement, particularly should the qualified 'not participating' outnumber the qualified participants. No telling what future criteria will be about the validity of sub-median voter turnout, in some places it is enough to invalidate a poll, that could easily spread.

@ 12

No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be the hiding place for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.

@ fairleft | Oct 26, 2016 8:05:28 AM | 14

Experience informs those who rely on 'ad hominem' as defence against another's argument are incapable of mounting a counter argument using facts. Furthermore, with few exception most so doing have developmental problems and have not matured much past adolescence, they going through life as man-children. Check back when you have matured. And that is definitely an ad hominem - to the person.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26 2016 12:55 utc | 23

Well and clearly said.

We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial.

It's rational to worry about Trump. Yes, he has a good track record of getting along with business partners when it counts, but he has no track record in governance. But Hillary Clinton is a monster and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while outside the world burns.

Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,' go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters.

Posted by: TG | Oct 26 2016 12:55 utc | 24

Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 8:30:32 AM | 20

What have you learned from making a wrong prediction?

Okay, and so you're recommending to other leftists -- folks who want a social democratic or socialist government and a non-imperialist foreign policy -- vote for Trump in 'battleground' states. What I see you doing with that recommendation is trading in all your beliefs for Trump (who is the ultimate in rabid deregulation and huge tax breaks for the rich and whose main advisors are all Neocons) because you're scared shirtless that Hillary will start WWIII.

The same old 'scare the leftists and they'll vote for the lesser evil' but you've just decided the lesser but still monstrous evil is Trump. Can we please think and act longer term, beyond the next four years of crap (either way) and start to fight for _our_ future?

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 26 2016 13:15 utc | 25

I can't imagine blowing up part of Siberia as being the next step in your a global conflict escalation sequence. Rather, think along the lines of... A popular Pacific Island chain, should the US actually destroy large numbers of Russian military assets.

Posted by: Wwinsti | Oct 26, 2016 5:00:04 AM | 3

Destroying air force and air defenses in Hmeim base at Syrian coast would call for a symmetric act, like annihilation of Diego Garcia base. I suspect that secret threats were exchanged in person.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 26 2016 13:22 utc | 26

fairleft @25

The fact is that the Greens can not/will not win.

Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained. That is not true for Hillary & Co.

A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 13:22 utc | 27

Joe | Oct 26, 2016 8:47:01 AM | 22

What anger by the anti-lesser-evil voting folks?

The only 'anger' I see is TBear's ad hominem attacks, which he apparently believes are justified.

Anyway, just for the record I have no big problem with people voting Trump. I certainly think this election is a major catastrophe for Americans on the domestic side whichever @hole is elected. But Trump would definitely be the lesser evil on the foreign policy side.

But what has lesser evil voting gotten us? Increasingly evil mainstream candidates. And the 'only two choices' will be worse in 2020 if this voting strategy/stupidity continues. Please always vote for who you think should be President, and please be an active citizen outside of this embarrassing, disgusting every four year ritual.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 26 2016 13:23 utc | 28

@fair
Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere.

I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 13:30 utc | 29

Trump,both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics since FDR.
Of course purists and utopians might disagree,but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as the second 4th of July.
America first,at long last,instead of traitors for zion.
Hoo haw.Todays Wapoo intimates Trump antisemite.
And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch.
What the hell do people need?

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 26 2016 13:40 utc | 30

The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world.

Russia's "deescalation" procedure (in reality it could be viewed both ways) is a take off of several strategic bombers (TU-160 from Engels) and deployment into the Arctic Region with subsequent launch of salvo of cruise missiles (Kh-102) armed with nuclear warheads into the polygons or uninhabited spaces. Putting all RVSN (nuclear strategic missile forces) on the immediate readiness (Combat Station) is also an option. There are certain ways, including diplomatic ones, to make "partners" more attentive to the events. Plus, most likely, the price, which US and NATO would pay in case some moron will decide to eliminate Russian Forces in Syria, will be very high purely militarily and, especially, reputation-wise. Attack on Russian Forces in Syria will also be the beginning of the end of NATO, if not the outright collapse. In the end, Russia has means to directly conventionally counter US, just this last quarter alone Russian Navy took delivery of 100+ cruise and ASMs of Kaliber and Onyx-classes. Contingencies have been counted and planned for.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Oct 26 2016 13:45 utc | 31

@20 Joe

Voting for a third party zionist is the same as voting for numbers 1 & 2, or 4 &6.

By vitriol I assume you refer to my excessive use of the word 'zionist,' which I will continue to do to remind all zionists they are participating in a charade, which zionists take as a considerable insult being they are such serious people.

See?

That's vitriol.

Paraphrasing uberzionist mind manager Jiddu Krishnamurti, it is no great accomplishment to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Posted by: C I eh? | Oct 26 2016 13:49 utc | 32

After reading all of the above, it seems that the best alternative may be to not vote at all!

IF you vote for Hillary then you vote for WW III

IF you vote for Donald then you vote for stupidity

IF you vote for Stein/Johnson you vote for ... ?

IF you don't vote, as the South Africans did, and enough people don't vote (which won't happen) then you delegitimize the whole shootin' match in the eyes of the world.

On a more positive note: the sun rose over the Llano Estacado, as usual, and there was evidence of no nuclear war yet. I suppose that means that there may still be hope?

Shoulda hada revolution ...

Posted by: rg the lg | Oct 26 2016 13:52 utc | 33

Clinton's plans are disturbing. I'll grant you that. But Trump's make no sense. He has two contradictory positions. He supports Russia and Assad as a means of supporting stability. But he also insists that what Clinton is doing gives power to Iran. But everything Trump proposes gives power to Iran. Assad and Russia support Iran. Iran supports Assad, etc. Does this make sense? For Trump to be consistent he needs to come out and say he favors supporting Iran as a counterbalance to Saudi Arabia. It would be interesting if he did this after years of GOP flame fanning against Iran and Assad. Trump is anti-Clinton and not much else.

And about that demonizing Putin negotiation strategy. Yeah, I remember the 2008 campaign where Obama was dragged over the coals by the right for suggesting he would sit down with Iran. Does anyone else remember that? There was a time when demonizing your opponents was considered a good strategy by the right. And how about appeasement. Isn't Trump basically saying we shouldn't criticize Putin because he is so big and scary? In other words, he favors appeasing Russia and Syria. Now I'm not saying that his position merits paying attention to. Clinton/Obama's strategy is problematic. But Clinton/Obama's strategy is consistent with GOP strategy for the last 20 years or so. It is a continuation of Bush. We are trying to create balance-of-power realities so that neither Iran nor Syria nor Saudi Arabia can get too powerful. It's short-term thinking that is creating very problematic long-term effects. In other words, all of the old GOP/DEM initiatives going back to Carter and Reagan and Bush are coming home to roost.

Posted by: Mars over Alberta | Oct 26 2016 14:25 utc | 34

Trump's foreign policy summed up in a 35% levy threat on Ford exporting jobs to Mexico. Read my lips ...!

Nails the underlying tensions in the Race for the Place.

The Big "F__k You!" election...

Even the spinless Bernie S. is slithering into criticism of Klinton and the Wall St Gang.

"Michael Moore Explains Why TRUMP Will Win"

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

[Published on Oct 24, 2016, 3:55m]

Posted by: x | Oct 26 2016 14:38 utc | 35

James Clapper thinks the Russians just might be serious.....

'...says he wouldn't put it past Russia to "to shoot down an American aircraft" if a no-fly zone is imposed over Syria.'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b70e5508-7db2-385a-b250-d3a28cafb5f6/ss_us-official%3A-russia-might.html

Not to worry. Hillary was only kidding about a no fly zone. Talking tough to keep up with the boys. It's an empowerment thing.

Posted by: dh | Oct 26 2016 14:52 utc | 36

@Jackrabbit | Oct 26, 2016 9:22:55 AM | 27

A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.

We are on the same wavelength. YES, we can't have Green and Democratic Party at the same time. First eliminates the Democratic party in this election cycle. You can’t eat your cake and have it too . Therefore, voting against Democratic Party is my first priority.

This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans voting for Hillary.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 26 2016 15:38 utc | 37

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan.

Here are are a few illustrative excerpts:

"The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible."

Now compare this to what Gen. Wesley Clarke revealed about the lead-up to the Iraq War. Six weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: “Are we still going to attack Iraq?” He said: “Sir, it’s worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: “I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It says we’re going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.”

This document, and the events which have followed its publication, should lay to rest once and for all any illusions we might have harboured in relation to the various wars in the Middle East.

The depths of the associated treason and treachery are simply breathtaking and will continue in overdrive should Hillary Rodent Clinton be elected President.

Posted by: anon | Oct 26 2016 15:47 utc | 38

@ jfl 2 and all commenters echoing

No to Clinton, No to Trump?

The only answer is eliminating the pre-selection mechanism that delivers the 2-candidate, elephant/jackass non-choice every election.
This is the election to do so: No to Clinton, no to Trump

jfl, I have always admired and read your comments here on MoA.

Sadly your posit means either of these two candidates will be (s)elected. Third Party rise in the USSA Will. Not. Happen. Anytime .Soon. Third Party candidates will not attract the ->$7 + billions required to run for the presidency. The status quo prevails.
So, in this very close election, wherein Soros told Bloomberg Hillary is a done deal,
http://toprightnews.com/the-fix-is-in-george-soros-says-hillary-election-a-done-deal-despite-trump-landslide/ Amerikans are left with these two options; voting for the least dangerous of the two:

(a) the brain damaged corrupt Illary as Huma, her sidekick, noted –“She is Still Not Perfect in Her Head"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/huma-abedin-hillary-she-still-not-perfect-her-head

or

(b) Trump, the blabber.

Derek Hunter, Radio Host, from the “Never Trump” camp:

“Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump”
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899

[.]
The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

After the last debate, when no outlet “fact checked” Hillary’s lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn’t lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn’t hold out any longer.

A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don’t know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won’t even be a media to hold her accountable.

The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who’ve made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it’s all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

I won’t stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won’t pretend someone is handing out flowers when they’re shoveling BS. But I’d rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president’s friends and political allies.

The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn’t happen – journalists are in on it. I can’t pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it. [.]

I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it’s so objectionable. A personal moral victory won’t suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.

~ ~ ~
I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote for the Clinton adds another potential16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption, death, destruction and endless wars.

Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic.

OMg Illary cares about women’s rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA, Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation.
The Clintons have no shame, no conscience and they can't grow one.

Posted by: likklemore | Oct 26 2016 15:56 utc | 39

@ 12
No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be one of the hiding places for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.
...
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:20 AM | 23

There, fixed it.
ALL of the Christian Colonial countries have pro-AmeriKKKan fascist governments which studiously ignore the Will Of the People.
I can't think of a single X-tian government which has NOT fallen into lockstep with the US - in flagrant defiance of the electorate.
Since we can't outbid the ppl who are bribing them to defy us, the only practical solution is rg the lg's pitchforks.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26 2016 15:56 utc | 40

I don't post here much anymore but Dr. Stein is the head of an NGO called the Green Party not a political party. She is busy protesting in North Dakota to get on Democracy Now instead of camping out in Bernie States pushing those voters to continue our political revolution with her. It's a shame really.

I've never had much respect for the Green Party and they have shown that they are incapable of becoming an oppisition party in the U.S.

If you are interested in 3rd parties take some time to check out the Justice Party and Rocky Anderson. They are not active this cycle. The Justice Party does not have an International Party which is problematic for the Greens in the U.S. The name Justice is much better in rhetorical fights than Green and they are not riddled with former Democratic whores.

With that said vote for Trump in swing states. He is the Lesser of Two Evils and this time we are talking about Nuclear War with Russia. Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl.

Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Oct 26 2016 16:05 utc | 41

The Green Party should, for all intents and purposes, be opposed to a billionaire lobbyist like Soros, however Jill Stein's running mate, Baraka, was also a board member at the Center for Constitutional Rights, CCR.

Which happens to be funded by George Soros.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/center_for_constitutional_rights/

There are other connections between the Green Party and George Soros, but I haven't got time to pursue this....

Anyone interested should look into the period from 2004 to 2011, when Baraka was the Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network, and look at who was funding the HUNDREDS of NGOs that make up the Human Rights Network.

Posted by: anon | Oct 26 2016 16:06 utc | 42

You are all wrong.

Anyone who seriously considers that voting...or NOT voting...for either of these creatures will change a goddamned thing is totally asleep to what has happened in the U.S. over the past 60+ years.

Gor read this article on today's Counterpunch:

A Deep State of Mind: America’s Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup

=======================================================================================

Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”

— Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech

Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.

Say hello to America’s shadow government.

A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government—also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”—may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.

---snip---

==========================================================================================

Read the rest of the article.

All of it.

And then go take care of your own business as best you can. The status quo will remain...hidden in various ways as it has been hidden since the late '40s/early '50s...until it fails of its own doing. No amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything is going to change what is up here. The best any of us can do is to try to reach one mind at a time.

Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell speech:

==========================================================================================

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

==========================================================================================

It didn't work then and it will work even less well now, in what we laughingly refer to as our "Information Age."

It's all over but the failing, and that could take a long, long while.

Or...it could be over in a nuclear instant.

Deal wid it.

Deal wid 'em both, and every other possibility in between.

All of the constant political jerking off in the media?

Just that.

A virtual reality constructed for the entertainment...and thus silencing and control of...the proles, using other ignorant proles as Judas goats.

Politics porn.

Fuggedaboudit!!!

Go do something real.

Please.

AG

Posted by: ArthurGilroy | Oct 26 2016 16:12 utc | 43

Hillary's last no fly zone was Libya, just saying....

Posted by: Shadyl | Oct 26 2016 16:28 utc | 44

"It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home."

It is ludicrous. And stupid. It would also be tantamount to a declaration of war. And the chickenshit US Military does NOT want a war with Russia, no matter what the daydreamers might say.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26 2016 16:56 utc | 45

Stating that the Green Party can not win does not take reality into account. Only 18% of voters participated in the primaries, the majority of voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans, and the population of Millennials has surpassed that of the Baby Boomers.

Of course this doesn't change the fact that it is still very unlikely that Jill Stein will win, but to imply that it's impossible is dishonest. I have always voted for the candidate that I liked... never for the lesser of two evils. How different would the world be if Nader had either won or gained popular support in 2000? Voting for the lesser of two evils has pushed the Republican Party into crazy town with the Democratic Party taking their place.

I'm not arrogant enough to tell people how to vote, however I am arrogant enough to inform. The lack of information and the inability to process more than one thought by both the voters and the media, alternative included, is astounding.

I'm pretty sure that people on this site know what imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would entail.
How is this not advocating a war of aggression? Have we forgotten what the Nuremberg Tribunal declared as the supreme international crime:

War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Not only do you have the current administration committing war crimes, you also have it's presidential candidate openly advocating a war crime.

Posted by: Tobin Paz | Oct 26 2016 17:11 utc | 46

My post, which I did not save, fell into a deep cyber hole.

To All commenters echoing “No to Clinton no to Trump” voting third party will result in either of the two.

It appears as we close in on the last weeks of the (s)election, Independents and Never Trumpers are breaking away for the Donald.

From Derek Hunter, Radio Host, of the “Never Trump” camp

Why I Now Feel Compelled To Vote For Trump
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/10/23/why-i-now-feel-compelled-to-vote-for-trump-n2235899

[.] The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won’t do it, it’s something. Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don’t want me to, and I believe I must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.

I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.

After the last debate, when no outlet “fact checked” Hillary’s lie that her opposition to the Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn’t lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn’t hold out any longer.

A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don’t know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won’t even be a media to hold her accountable.

The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone, even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who’ve made their fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not be enough, but it’s all I can do and I have to do all I can do.

I won’t stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won’t pretend someone is handing out flowers when they’re shoveling BS. But I’d rather have BS shoveled out of a president than our tax dollars shoveled to a president’s friends and political allies.

The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn’t happen – journalists are in on it. I can’t pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it. [.]

I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what someone does, especially when it’s so objectionable. A personal moral victory won’t suffice when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.

~ ~ ~ ~
It is long past due and time to stop the corrupt Clintons from continuing to enrich themselves off the backs of taxpayers; domestic and foreign.
Illary professes to care about women’s rights yet her Clinton Family Foundation takes in $millions from the likes of KSA and Qatar. Moreover, there is no shame in taking donations from small countries steeped in poverty. It is high time to retire the Clintons. They have no conscience. If you haven’t a conscience you can’t grow one.

Posted by: likklemore | Oct 26 2016 17:20 utc | 47

RayB - well stated arguments to vote for Trump. Thank you for taking the time to post them.

As folks here already know, Hillary's stated commitment to impose a No-Fly Zone in Syria is a show stopper for me. There is no way I can support more tragedy in Syria let alone elsewhere.

Any who don't think such a policy position does not matter tells me you are a supporter of the neoliberal/neocon imperial building for which I cannot support. This is what a vote for Clinton means.

I may have had a different opinion or thought about the U.S. morphing into the world's top cop had I ever been asked, but I wasn't. I never was asked to vote on it or for/against it. These sneaky rastards intentions were never spelled out, never communicated succinctly to the populous let alone debated on the merits. Nope. These rastards are hell bent on shoving their neoliberal/neocon/third way/nwo crap down American's throats.

And no, Donald is and always will be an outsider. If you believe otherwise you've obviously not been paying much attention to him over the last four years. That man did not win the primaries by chance, he won them handily through skill and out maneuvering his opponents. He has spent the last four years learning up close the plethora of challenges an open border presents to the security of the U.S. He gets the issues revolving around policing and the growing police state. He has formiddable experience making, losing and making money again. He's had a front seat to big business and its multiple machinations for decades.

And a vote for Hillary is a vote for the Establishment and their utopian new world order, which includes WAR, WAR, and MORE WAR!

Posted by: h | Oct 26 2016 17:29 utc | 48

Touching naivety about Trump however the probability of him being 'different', given his record, doesn't support it.

The problem with Trump is he made a #1 strategic mistake in supporting and giving in to the religious right.

Apart from anything else this gives zero confidence that he'd stand up to the far more powerful neo-liberal, neo-con 'war party' establishment if he got into power. If he caves totally to a bunch of fundamentalist nutjobs, who themselves are neo-liberal and neo-conservative to the core, it doesn't actually inspire any confidence whatsoever. Take one example Mike Pence is a neo-conservative 'Israel firster'... through and through.

Somehow I can't see the world being a safer place if the US tears itself to pieces trying to become a fundamentalist religious 'state', dominated by a bunch of people wanting 'the end of times'....

Despite the "with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society." comment, he has threatened the rights of the majority of voters and even the very existence of some.
In case no one had noticed 50% of the population are women, add in all the other minorities and you have a healthy 60-70% he is directly threatening.

Religious right candidates (like Cruz and Pence) are unelectable, ever more so with time as organised religion dies in the US and their policies on women and LGBTI people, plus let's not forget their endemic racism, become every more unacceptable.

And note ALL the 'religious right' people are total neo-conservatives, that almost make Clinton look like a pacifist.

Posted by: Lisa | Oct 26 2016 17:42 utc | 49

Tobin Paz @45

Trump has nearly destroyed the Republican Party. And he has done so by speaking truths that are rarely heard in "polite company": our politicians are puppets and our elections are "rigged".

Sanders spoke against inequality but he didn't go as far as Trump. He couldn't because he was merely a sheepdog, leading his young 'flock' to Hillary.

If Trump wins, it would be a body blow to the Democrats who play on peoples fears to get elected but never deliver workable solutions. Rinse. Repeat.

The Greens can win in 2020 after Trump fails and both parties are in disarray.

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

I'm not telling people how to vote. I encourage people to think for themselves. This is only MY opinion.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 17:50 utc | 50

Its hard to emotionally accept the occurrence of a nuclear war today.
You should see how Saker couldn't cope with it at first.

If Russian assets in Syria get destroyed. The response will not to be nuking that little island in the Indian ocean far away from everything or Hawaii that is in the middle of nowhere.

An act of war was done.

WW3 begins.

Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Oct 26 2016 18:00 utc | 51

"The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities. But then what?" Then the US activates also activates phase D which is NATO invasion of Russia (from Ukraine, the Baltics, Scandinavia) and China (from South Korea, Japan + other US bases scatered all over the US empire).

I don't believe Trump's domestic and foreign policy will be any more different or peacefull. I think he would just be facing a lot more resistance. Either way, unless Hillary dies there is no doubt she will be the next POTUS.

Posted by: Ody | Oct 26 2016 18:05 utc | 52

@ Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 26, 2016 11:56:25 AM | 39

Bartender, please set up a drink for the hoarsewispererer, should have watched the p's and q's a bit more closely and been a bit more inclusive.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26 2016 18:23 utc | 53

Hey Lisa, how old are you?

As a 50 something adult who lives in a state where we have a healthy voter population of Christian Right, which you refer to as religious right, folk let me assure you that your description of them is way the hell out of line. Your distasteful comment shows just how inexperienced and ignorant you are about this very American voting block.

Why are you even weighing in here? You seem more of a DailyKos kinda poster. Posters around here tend to avoid language that is as divisive as yours and that all knowing punkish tone you are using.

Posted by: h | Oct 26 2016 18:23 utc | 54

Hey Lisa @48

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but these neoconservative you are talking about have been leaving his camp in droves in the preceeding months. Please do not lecture us on some secret collusion between Trump and those wicked shits. There is no doubt they will be crawling back to the Donald when he sits on the throne. But make no mistake: he will not forget the treachery of these subjects, just as the constituents of these jokers will not forget how they abandoned the Donald and revealed their obedience to the uniparty. These are the voters that hate "politicians," remember? I can't wait to see Paul Ryan squirm.

And GTFO with your lgbtq trolling nonsense. Time to relegate these babies to their safe spaces so we can all breathe a sigh of relief to be rid of their loud, obnoxious mental anguish over their own petty insignificance. Remember, too, that Syrian lives matter. Once the culture of death is curtailed anroad, we can tackle the culture of death at home. Ancient Chinese wisdom for dumb trolls.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 26 2016 18:31 utc | 55

40

#40. Good points.

Trump sounds very scary in many ways but most of the stuff he babbles on about should not worry anybody. The President of the US does not rule the US. Power in the US is distributed into the three branches of government -- the executive, Congress and the judiciary. Most of Trump's worst ideas will have to pass through Congress and the judiciary. There is only one area where the President has total dominion and that is foreign policy and making war.

The question should come down to who do we want want as the next President -- a candidate that seeks war with Russia or one who wants to negotiate and make deals? Given that question we will be better off with Trump.

If Trump wins he will not have any support in Congress so it makes no sense that he will succeed in cutting taxes for the richest or build the Mexican wall or any of the other nutty things he advocates. But making peace with the Russians is the one thing he could accomplish.

Also I support Trump because the Democratic National Committee has been completely taken over by the Hillary and neocon wing of the Democratic Party. As long as they control the Democratic Party (which they do today) any US president that is a Democrat means that WWIII is a real option always on the table. Tax cuts for the rich, increased monopolization of the economy, increased poverty rates, restrictions on abortions, etc, are quite secondary. [BTW, I have served on a county Democratic central committee for the last two decades and worked on presidential campaigns for Democrats going back to Eisenhower-Stevens in 1956 (except for Humphrey in 1968). What I have witnessed is that the entire party has been taken over by the big money contributions going down to city council elections.] A Trump victory will give us a small chance for the grass roots Democrats to regain some influence in national Party affairs -- today we have none.

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 26 2016 18:47 utc | 56

ArthurGilroy

NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything. but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse, and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.

Posted by: john | Oct 26 2016 18:49 utc | 57

@1 I think it makes little sense to convince progressives that the should vote for Hillary. And it is absurd to insist that a vote for anyone other than Trump is "a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton." The more people that don't vote for Hillary the better. And a vote for Jill Stein builds up the Green Party. If we could get the message out that Hillary is just too dangerous and that a real progressive choice is Jill Stein, then it is possible that a good number of people who may have voted for Hillary (and who can't stomach Trump) could take away Clinton's margin of victory . I am voting for Jill Stein, I live in NY, it is not practical, given past elections, to think Trump could win NY. I would be wasting my vote to vote for Trump in NY. When I vote for Jill Stein, that is another vote NOT going to Hillary Clinton. see video: VIDEO

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 26 2016 18:57 utc | 58

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the U.S., 13% approve of the job Congress is doing, in line with approval ratings ranging from 11% to 16% since August. The current rating is just four percentage points above the record low of 9% recorded in November 2013.

'Selection' 2016 is a clown show. Trump, Hill & Bill, Bu$h I, Bu$h II even Romney are all heavily involved is the drug money laundry business. A vote is a vote that legitimises the system.

I just cannot bring myself to vote for any of these criminals. Every vote legitimises this freak show.

***Last letter of the alphabet does not work on my keyboard.

PEACE OUT

Posted by: ALberto | Oct 26 2016 18:58 utc | 59

Donald Trump as the front runner and then candidate of the Republican Party didn't just happen. This was by design, it was what the DNC and the Hillary campaign wanted and what they told the media to do, to elevate him to leader of the pack. (Wikileaks reveals

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 26 2016 19:01 utc | 60

@56
====

NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything. but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse, and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.

====

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

But it ain't gonna happen .

A huge majority of the U.S. population is still caught up in the wonderful political virtual reality game so generously provided for free by the Deep State-controlled media. They will clomp-clomp-clomp on out of their zombified dwellings and vote for whichever of the two-dimensional VR candidates for whom they root.

So it goes.

Would it were otherwise.

AG

Posted by: ArthurGilroy | Oct 26 2016 19:08 utc | 61

Ludicrous propaganda once again from b. B sure is trying his darndest to want to work for the Russian state under his lord and saviour Putin the irresistible.

Trump himself said that China is a threat to the US. And he refuses to rule out no war with China. Therefore Trump is likely wanting to start world War three by attacking China. How is that worse than Hitlery wanting to attack Russia in Syria.

Trump will take Iraqs oil, make Mexico pay for a wall on the US side starting a war with them, and so much more horrendous criminality

And Trumps foreign policy is "sane". What despicable ludicrous lies

Posted by: tom | Oct 26 2016 19:12 utc | 62

My opinion

Trump and KKKillary popular vote split 50/50. Electoral College goes to $hillary.

Like the 'Talking Heads' said "Same as it ever was."

Posted by: ALberto | Oct 26 2016 19:15 utc | 63

I predicted that JEB! would be the next President. I still don't understand why I was so far off the mark. He's crooked enough...He's smart enough...

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 26 2016 19:18 utc | 64

Seriously people. If anyone believes either candidate means what they say, with all due respect, you're delusional. No matter what, whomever "wins", they'll do as they're instructed to do.

Sorry b, with all due respect and gratitude for what you do, that includes you. Living up to one's rhetoric is difficult, for anyone running for POTUS, impossible.

Posted by: ben | Oct 26 2016 19:28 utc | 65

The only relevant vote against that crazy bitch from hell?
Of course:
Trump

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 26 2016 19:33 utc | 66

A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they don't point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost inevitable if the US escalates in Syria

Posted by: paul | Oct 26 2016 19:49 utc | 67

Those who say: Its all a charade, voting changes nothing, Trump will do what he's told, etc. have
either given up in disgust or are purposely ignoring reality. The establishment is afraid of a
Trump win. There are numerous instances of their manipulating or attempting to manipulate the election.

Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Green everywhere else.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 20:03 utc | 68

@59 Tom

So what? I've read that leak. Doesn't speak or reference in any way complicity of Trump's campaign or even the repubs. I think you are framing that to fit your perspective that the DNC is the main powerbroker, here. Whereas, the more hilarious conclusion to draw would be that, through their arrogance and complete and utter disdain for the disaffected, they underestimated the threat of a "fringe" candidate. Talk about the most fuckin' shortsighted political decision (all-time bone head plays #1) this side of Joe Liebermann. God it makes me smile. And to think, the media played right into Trump's tiny hands. That's showmanship. Face it: he is smarter and crafter and he knows the people just a hair more.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 26 2016 20:10 utc | 69

ArthurGilroy says:

But it ain't gonna happen

no, Arthur, it ain't, but, presumably, you won't be voting either.

Posted by: john | Oct 26 2016 20:12 utc | 70

@Ben 64

Yes, we all want Trump to save the whales, make cake healthy, unite the Muslim world, make college free, fix health-care, restore the rust-belt, solve climate - change while delivering more jobs to energy sector, defeat Isis while not upsetting KSA, Qatar, et.al, and not go into Syria.

I'll take one of those at least for my vote. Can you guess which one?

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 26 2016 20:20 utc | 71

Lately I can understand why most people hate trump and love Clinton or vise versa. But I have to say that both party's have great and solid points that needs to be taken serious the voting will be harder then before that is for sure the only thing I hate about the politics is that when the candidate has won all point's they have made in the election round will go out the window.

My dutch boyfriend just ask me why do they always put one man in the seat to control all why not join forces will this not be a better option what do you think those he has a point or is it just wrong thinking on his part.

Posted by: Pascal | Oct 26 2016 20:22 utc | 72

@69

John...

True dat.

AG

Posted by: ArthurGilroy | Oct 26 2016 20:25 utc | 73

They weren't just talking tough about a no-fly zone in Libya.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 26 2016 20:43 utc | 74

Love Him or Hate Him, Trump is the Revolution Against the Establishment

Look at Greece. The progressives/socialists could not win. It seems that we need a nationalist.

It is a hard truth for progressives. The left has failed miserably to check the tyranny of neolibcon Centrists who sell us all out to the highest bidder.

We need a Trump, like Russia needed a Putin. To right the ship.

When the dust settles, and lessons are learned, real progressives with integrity can rebuild.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 26 2016 21:13 utc | 75

@73 Libya was a piece of cake. No nasty Russians to worry about. If Hillary tries that in Syria she'll be sorry. We all will.

Posted by: dh | Oct 26 2016 21:24 utc | 76

Jimbo is giving a good daily rundown of the fraud coming in from the advance polls, & other things.
I like the one where the poll station workers are filling in the paper ballot votes after, for those not voting.
http://82.221.129.208/basepageq5.html

http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l800/pict/322160913590_1.jpg

Posted by: schlub | Oct 26 2016 21:50 utc | 77

I don't know about Trump. But Hillary is a fucking nightmare. I don't live in America and I can't vote there, but to those who do and can, please don't vote for that psycho bitch. Anyone else. Anybody. But to cast a vote for her would be an exhibition of ignorance and willful sociopathy. The world is begging you, please... Pleeeeeeeease. Do not vote for whole countries to be flushed down the same toilet of meglomaniacal greed. Be nice. There are a lot of other people living on this planet. We don't wanna kill anybody, we just wanna relax and thrive. Get with the program....

Posted by: dan | Oct 26 2016 22:02 utc | 78

Just my opinion

Trump loses in the Electoral College. Gets his own TV network and proceeds to preempt and co opt 3rd party Constitution Party. Just like Dr. Ron Paul's campaign was co opted by supposed Tea Party people who were in fact Conservative paid stooges. Right off the top the Cock brothers come to mind.

Posted by: ALberto | Oct 26 2016 22:04 utc | 79

@Jackrabbit 74
The Nationalist response is a natural one in the face of this unseen, centralising, globalist beast. UK just had theirs with Brexit, and now we see the battle lines redrawn and subsequent rally behind Corbyn. France could be next in Europe.

The left seems not to know where it is in the states... I agree it needs to fall into disarray before rediscovering itself.

Trump has the momentum going down the straight, no one knows what the fuck is going on amongst all the monkey shit being flung in the cage...but no one is oblivious to the the fact that the establishment, from the neocon flight to the unprecedented MSM collusion and everything in-between, is so OTT Trump. Too much so. It's what the progressive left always wanted, a hero like this, to stand up to the machine.

All that money and all Hillary cam come up with is a naughty word and 'Never Trump' - almost as if Trump goaded them into a shitfight by making idiotic, outlandish statements alongside his more thoughtful output that doesn't make primetime cable news. Now the Dems have less than two weeks to attack some real issues to quiet the silent majority's upcoming 'fuck you' vote...

I'd even go as far to say there will be plenty of silent Dems voting Trump if the election was right now. No wonder Trump wants a 4th debate.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Oct 26 2016 22:16 utc | 80

@78 ALberto
Good call, its not The Don or Hillary, Hillary's toast either way. The November question is: President Trump or TrumpTV...?

Posted by: MadMax2 | Oct 26 2016 22:24 utc | 81

The only recourse the citizenry of the Outlaw US Empire has in attempting to restore its freedoms and regain control of the national government is to revolt. Unfortunately, such a dire action requires a high degree of solidarity amongst a body of citizens large enough to make the attempt and there's no sign of such a body anywhere to be seen. Thus we'll see the selection of HRC and the last gasp of the Neoliberalcons attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet and its people that will likely escalate the already existing Hybrid WW3 to a hot war. In other words, it doesn't matter who you vote for, so you ought to vote your conscience so you can be right with yourself. Our household's voting Stein.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 26 2016 22:32 utc | 82

>> He's crooked enough...He's smart enough...

Stuart Smalley??

Posted by: dumbass | Oct 26 2016 22:42 utc | 83

'The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts.' - b

The latter sentence contrasts with trump's determination to kill ISIS and take their oil. Sounds like occupation to me. And his manner of fighting them - with unrestrained torture and bullets dipped in pig's blood - is likely to catalyse supporty for them else where in the muslim world (and the muslim parts of the west), even if ISIS is stomped flat in Syria/Iraq. Coup[led with his blanket ban on muslim immigration, this sounds like a recipe for more conflict, not less.

Likewise with some other big issues: climate change and world trade. As shitty as the WTO system can be, simply withdrawing and erecting huge tariffs would have catastrophic effects on world trade that wwe comparable to if not worse than the 1931 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that crippled world trade and set the stage for WW2. Worse, Trump's 100% opposition to acting on climate change, and his determination to allow all fossil fuel extraction projects to go ahead, will guarantee catastrophic global warming that will make WW2 itself look insignificant in the long run.

I agree that Hillary is a menace. But that doesn't make Trump less of one.

Posted by: Sigil | Oct 26 2016 22:55 utc | 84

Climate change is indeed a threat, but not an immediate one.

WW3 is an immediate threat.

It made sense to ally with Stalin, a long-term threat, against Hitler, an immediate one.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 26 2016 22:59 utc | 85

Perfect legacy of Obama is the just announced Obamacare insurance premium 25℅ avg rate increases. Covered at WSWS but can't link from this phone. How about a $10,000 deductible for a family of 4 making $40,000? Things will get worse on several fronts next year, according to bipartisan plans published in the NYT. Trump's 'solution' is going back to what we had before, ie he has no solution. Wants to turn Medicaid, aid for our poor, into a voucher program. Don't vote for austerity, don't vote for HillTrump.

Posted by: fairleft | Oct 26 2016 23:31 utc | 86

I knew there would be further need of this. Once again, the facts strongly suggest why he's a bigger hawk than Hillary Clinton.

Trump isn’t a leftist, nor is he a pacifist. In fact, Trump is an ardent militarist, who has been proposing actual colonial wars of conquest for years. It’s a kind of nationalist hawkishness that we haven’t seen much of in the United States since the Cold War — but has supported some of the most aggressive uses of force in American history.

You'll see a robust bill of particulars in the article; I've cited some of them earlier. To little effect of course; Red Hats and Green Tea Bags make excellent counter-factual filters.

The author, Zack Beauchamp, quite helpfully puts The Day-Glo Orange Duckhead in historical context. He quotes the historian Walter Russell Mead on the Jacksonian tradition in American foreign policy. He's from Bard College, BTW, which rates fairly high up on the uber-liberal university scale. So they don't be doin' too many Orange Jello Shots, know what I mean?

Jacksonians, according to Mead, are basically focused on the interests and reputation of the United States. They are skeptical of ... idealistic quests removed from the interests of everyday Americans. But when American interests are in question, or failing to fight will make America look weak, Jacksonians are more aggressive than anyone.

“The Gulf War was a popular war in Jacksonian circles because the defense of the nation’s oil supply struck a chord with Jacksonian opinion.... With them it is an instinct rather than an ideology — a culturally shaped set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas," Mead writes. Sound familiar?

Historically — and here’s the important part — the Jacksonian tradition has been partly responsible for a lot of what we see today as American atrocities....

Jackson himself is responsible for the "Trail of Tears."

On the campaign trail, Trump routinely cites Gens. George Patton and Douglas MacArthur as foreign policy models — uber-Jacksonians both. Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union after World War II to head off perceived future threats to America. And President Harry Truman fired MacArthur, despite his strategic genius, for publicly and insubordinately advocating total war against China during the Korean War.

This is the tradition Trump’s views seem to fit into. But while Patton and MacArthur at least had real military expertise and intellectual heft animating their hawkishness, Trump is just a collection of angry impulses. There’s no worked-out strategic doctrine here, just an impulse to act aggressively when it seems like America’s interests and/or reputation are at stake.

Just a bundle of anger, driven by emotion, no set plan, aggressive with poor impulse control. What could possibly go wrong?

So he doesn't want the present wars in the Ukraine and Syria, he says, now. But all the better to bomb Iraq and Iran into a pulp, it would seem.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 26 2016 23:39 utc | 87

Climate change is already affecting the world, and it will take a concerted effort over a much, much longer period to get it under control, when compared to the Nazi threat.
This is scientifically certain. The prospect of WW3 under Hillary's presidency is very far from being certain.

Posted by: Sigil | Oct 26 2016 23:43 utc | 88

thanks b.. i agree..

what oligarch will those pesky amerikkans vote for?

oligarch 1 - hillary

or oligarch 2 - trump

if it was me, i would be voting 2.. but being in canada, i don't get to vote.. i just get to listen to bullshite 2016 election usa 24/7 any time i venture onto the internut..

Posted by: james | Oct 26 2016 23:54 utc | 89

What are we facing now? WE ARE FACING WW-III!

I don't now recall if i've posted these pieces here yet, but they do involve a matter of life and death for ALL OF US! So here they are:

Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy As "Scarier Than Trump's"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/jill-stein-slams-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-scarier-trumps

BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBqvhafoUBY

The third — and final — presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump was held Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and moderated by Fox News’ Chris Wallace.

At one point Hillary said: "....and I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria"

Listen at: 1 hour, 20 minutes in:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/watch_live_final_presidential_debate_between_hillary_clinton__donald_trump.html

A No Fly Zone means we shoot down Russian planes. And THAT MEANS WW-III.

= = = = Furthermore = = = =

With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet, and it has been known of for many years. 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 poling stations. 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"), which prevents voters from exercising the strategies that they need to use to defeat the big bosses. 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, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

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 (most famous) case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine "hedge votes" for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives" like "IRV" and "approval voting". Ranked choice voting is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Open Society Foundations (of Soros), and on and on.

Ranked choice voting is just as bad,or worse than out present single-bid ("plurality") method with regard to enforcing the two party syndrome, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.

Score voting is fundamentally distinct from ranked choice voting, and does not promote the two party syndrome. That's probably why it doesn't get hundreds of millions of promotion dollars as the "Green" Party's ranked choice system does.

PLEASE look at the truth for yourself:

http://www.fairvote.org/financials

http://www.fairvote.org/rcv

Very hard to believe, huh?

And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

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.

We cannot afford any more of this intellectual masturbation, which has lead to this absurd 2016 "election". All we should be doing is protesting for safe, easy-to-understand strategic hedge simple score voting.

And I will be voting for Donald Trump, even though I know that my "ballot" is going to be fed into an infernal machine.

Posted by: blues | Oct 27 2016 0:11 utc | 90

Clinton advised the mainstream media to push his legitimacy as a “pied piper” candidate because she realized, after looking at the poll numbers, that she wouldn’t stand a chance at winning the presidency against any of the establishment republicans without making them “pied pipers” – it just so happened that Donald was the easiest to play the role considering his long history of friendship with the Clintons.
https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2016/10/25/rigged-election-hillary-trump-caught-partying-like-bffs-kissinger-jesuit-gala.html

Caption this!:
https://dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/donald-hillary-800.jpg

or this:
https://dollarvigilante.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cardinalhillanddon.jpg

Posted by: schlub | Oct 27 2016 0:18 utc | 91

blues @ 89

> BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. One of election's sicker sideshows: Briebert's site covering Stein more then almost anyone else... when they can twist one of Jill's criticism's of Hillary into and endorsement of Trump. Jill is most certainly a NASTY woman. :)

This is bottom feeding stuff.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 27 2016 0:50 utc | 92

I get it. I really do.

Trump has some strange ideas. And he'll cause some real harm in some areas.

But again, his strong medicine is what is needed. We can spill loads of electronic ink debating the
reasons why and talking about how he sucks but that won't change the reality.

I am very much against the duopoly. But one of these two will win. A win by Trump and a strong
showing by the Greens is the best we can hope for.It sends a clear message. What message does
voting for Hillary send? That we will allow ourselves to be compromised yet AGAIN?

Trump says: "either you have a country, or you don't". So what are the 'borders' that the left will
defend? Just how much will the Left allow its so-called leaders to compromise and marginalize us?

There is a natural alliance between the principled left and principled right that the mercenary,
mendacious establishment fears. Don't be fooled by Hillary/DNC scare tactics and media manipulation!

Hillary tells some voters that she will continue Obama's policies and other voters that she will be
different. She assures Goldman Sacks that her private positions differ very much from her public
positions. She runs pay to play scams via the Clinton Foundation, takes tons of money from Wall Street
and pretends that none of that influences her. The Chair of the DNC joined her campaign after her
work against Sanders was revealed! And Sanders response? He endorsed Hillary!!

The Democrats believe that YOU and your family, friends, and neighbors are confused and scared or just
plain dumb and foolish enough to vote for Hillary and other Democrats that will ride her coattails.
Prove them wrong. Stand up for yourself! Vote for Trump in swing states and Jill Stein in other states.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 27 2016 0:56 utc | 93

@92 What message does voting for Hillary send?

That the establishment candidate is not automatically the worst possible candidate. Not when the other is an unrepentant racist determined to castrate the First Amendment and incinerate the climate. What message does it send when a candidate whose campaign took off at the point he called most - if not all - illegal immigrants 'rapists' wins the White House? Besides, you sound more like a Sanders supporter than a Trump supporter - so maybe his thoughts are worth taking into account here.

Posted by: Sigil | Oct 27 2016 1:09 utc | 94

@ rufus magister 86

I had assumed your link would be garbage, but took a look, anyway. In fact, it raises significant points. In particular, previously unknown (to me) details about his views about "taking the oil".

I'm definitely for Trump, consider him far safer and saner than Clinton wrt foreign policy with most of the world (I suspect he could be worse wrt N Korea, than Clinton; also, no better wrt Africa, than Clinton).

I have never been impressed with the Trumpian "take the oil" position that I learned of during the campaign, and have described it as "goofy" and "sure sounding like a war crime". That this particular stupidity (or hawkish stupidity, if you prefer) is nothing new, and extended to Libya, is disappointing.

Still, on balance, compared to the endless hemming in and provocation of nuclear super-power Russia (not to mention smearing of Putin), by the neocon class of which Hillary is an obvious example of, the author's claim that Trump is more of a hawk than her still sounds absurd. Even if the argument has some merits.

Foreign affairs editor of Chronicles Magazine, srdja Trifkovic rated Trump's foreign policy speech of April a B+. From https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/america-first-controversy/ :

"Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech last Wednesday deserves at least a solid B+ and you can read my take on it in the June issue of Chronicles. It offered an eloquent argument for offensive realism, based on the fact that the international system—composed of sovereign nation-states pursuing their interests—is still essentially competitive and Hobbesian. Trump is the only candidate who understands this cardinal fact, and who unambiguously states America is not and should not be an exception to that timeless principle."

A key guy who has Trump's ear (and for whom there was speculation would be VP) was former DIA head Mike Flynn. See "Trump's favorite general" @ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-general-michael-flynn-vp-225253 From that article:

"Since leaving government, Flynn has angered U.S. officials over his friendly ties to Russia, with which he has publicly advocated better relations and military cooperation in the Middle East — a departure from the official Pentagon line. He even recently sat at the head table at a dinner in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised."

This same article also says,

"Much as Trump likes to keep things in the family, Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn, serves as a chief adviser."

The idea that Trump wouldn't consult with the likes of Flynn - who might be his Secretary of Defense - also seems goofy. Of course he will.

The Obama Administration, of which Hillary was an integral part, deliberately allowed ISIS to flourish, in it's early stages. Trump's incompetence as a political candidate is amply demonstrated by the fact that, even given 3 national debate audiences, he FAILED to pin the US non-interdiction of the mega ISIS oil trade, run through Turkey, on the Obama administration (thus, to one degree or another, also on Clinton). See "Russian intel spots 12,000 oil tankers & trucks on Turkey-Iraq border - General Staff" for photos that Trump should have (pardon the expression) trumpeted during all 3 national debates. Had he done so, in stead of being politically inept and inarticulate, he would have cemented in the public's mind just HOW evil the foreign policy of both Obama and Clinton were. (Of course, he should have also mentioned the wikileaks tick tock memos, crediting uber SoS failure Hilary Clinton with steps on the road to the destruction of Libya).

Hillary has not just spouted militaristic, imperialistic hokum. She was also in the decision loop, as war crimes against Libya, in particular, were being decided on, then perpetrated. She has a history that is far more evidential of catastrophic militarism than goofy statements about "taking the oil".

Posted by: metamars | Oct 27 2016 1:10 utc | 95

Even if you are going to pick the other guy's pocket, you have to view him as human
I wonder about the digital scum

Posted by: Jay M | Oct 27 2016 1:20 utc | 96

metamars at 94 --

Very kind of you to note your new-found concerns, anytime.

Trump has net yet been in the loop. I do not want him there, he would be bad for the country and planet. His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 27 2016 1:27 utc | 97

re: jdmckay | Oct 26, 2016 8:50:23 PM | 91

{quote} > BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP

Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. {end quote}

You are misquoting me intensionally. I put: "BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort Of][1 min., 15 sec.]" And that is because YouTube links often break up while their titles remain searchable.

You ignored that I added "[Sort of]"!

I think there are likely a lot of DailyKos zombies around here tonight.

Trump may be a bullheaded semi-thug, but I'll vote for him before I join the "die with Hillary" movement.

Posted by: blues | Oct 27 2016 1:29 utc | 98

"His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions."

On balance, no, they don't. Even if Flynn couldn't talk any sense into him regarding "taking the oil", and a President Trump somehow managed to pull that off, and it turned into an endless conflict, the $$ cost of which exceeded the oil profits thus obtained, that would still be preferable to nuclear exchanges with Russia.

I read just today about a Russian nuke, called "Satan", that supposedly can destroy a country the size of France (or the state of Texas). I had to read it twice, since the claim seemed preposterous. (I assume it's some sort of multiple warhead device, and what the claim really means is that it can destroy all cities in an area the size of France.)

Peace with Russia is, to use a Star Trek phrase, the "prime directive". Trusting that to Clinton is a fool's errand. Trusting that to Trump is not.

Posted by: metamars | Oct 27 2016 2:35 utc | 99

No matter the facts, and b has laid it out as clearly as one can, the left and the urban classes in America will vote for the proven warmonger. Why? For them virtue signalling is more important than the existential threat of riding up an escalatory ladder to a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Posted by: ab initio | Oct 27 2016 2:41 utc | 100