Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 19, 2020

Bolivia Has Won. Will Trump Win Too?

It seems that Elon Musk has lost the election in Bolivia:

Even Morales’ nemesis, the rightwing interim president, Jeanine Áñez, conceded the left had come out on top. “We do not yet have the official count, but the data we do have shows that Mr Arce [has] … won the election. I congratulate the winners and ask them to govern thinking of Bolivia and of democracy,” Áñez tweeted.

Congratulation to the Movimiento al Socialismo, its candidate Luis Arce and the people of Bolivia who withstood the onslaught of intimidation and violence from the right and the military. Even as democracy is now restored in Bolivia it would be wrong to let the right and the military get away with what they have done. They will otherwise try to do it again. The coup leaders should be hauled in front of a court. Bolivia should ask Venezuela for advice on how to coup proof its military forces.

As the U.S. regime change operation in Caracas has failed, Washington will now revert to other measures to dispose of the leaders of that country. Sanctions for this or that bullshit reason are just around the corner. Bolivia must integrate itself with other socialist and 'resistance' nations and seek autonomy from imperialist imports.

Now onto the other election that is on peoples' mind.

While most polls show that Joe Biden will win the U.S. election my gut is telling me that Donald Trump will have a second term. The election might well become a repeat of  2016 when Trump won even though most media had predicted that Hillary Clinton would win.

There are two main reasons for this. The local ground game and enthusiasm for the candidates.

The Democrats have neglected the ground game. Their get out the vote efforts seem minimal. Meanwhile the Republicans are going from door to door and have registered large number of voters:

Republican registration has ticked up in key states at the same time Democratic field operations were in hibernation. Democratic turnout is surging in the early vote. But it’s unclear whether it will be enough to overcome an expected rush of ballots that Republicans, leerier of mail voting, will cast in person on Election Day.

There is uncertainty about the accuracy of polling in certain swing states, the efficacy of GOP voter suppression efforts and even the number of mail-in ballots that for one reason or another will be disqualified.

Biden has collected more donations than Trump but money can only buy him advertisement. Trump gets media attention for free due to the constant outrage the Democrats project on him.

The second reason for predicting a Trump win is the enthusiasm of his supporters. Video shows thousands of people standing at the streets to wave at a passing Trump convoy in California. Meanwhile Biden goes out to read from giant teleprompters to empty parking lots.

While Trump will be campaigning all week Biden decided to stay at home to prepare for the next debate. How can he defend himself against the serious corruption accusations that his son's emails seem to support?

The Democrats under Biden have shunned the progressive policies who brought the most enthusiasm to the primaries. Everyone presumes that the center-right Biden is just a stand in who will be removed soon to be replaced by the center-right Kamala Harris. Harris has been Hillary Clinton's choice since at least mid 2017. During the primaries she never polled higher than 2%. Politically she is not an attractive candidate.

The other people behind the Biden/Harris campaigns are just the same warmongers who wreaked havoc all over the world during the Obama administration.

Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms - 22:14 UTC · Oct 18, 2020

I’m expecting America to get needlessly involved in more conflicts in the name of democracy, freedom, credibility, resolve & leadership. Just listen to folks like Michèle Flournoy, Mayor Pete, Susan Rice. Non-intervention has been branded as a Putin gift. We live in stupid times.

Patrick Porter @PatPorter76 · 5h

I'm skeptical of whether a Biden presidency will significantly draw down US military presence in ME. As well as the general forces that favour inertia, there will always be more pressing things for a new Democrat president to do.

Trump has botched the response to the pandemic. But would a Democratic president have done better against the resistance of many states against harsher control measures? The reasons the U.S. was hit so hard are in my view ingrained in its society. A different president would have prepared somewhat better but the outcome would likely not have been much different.

On most domestic issues Trump is only slightly to the right of a Biden/Harris administration. His foreign policy is less warmongering but more chaotic than a Democratic administration would likely be. That makes him in total more preferable to me.

That does not mean that I would vote for Trump. If I had a vote in the upcoming election it would likely go to where it does the least harm - to some third party candidate who argues for more peaceful and more socialist policies.

Posted by b on October 19, 2020 at 16:03 UTC | Permalink

next page »

thanks b... i am happy at the outcome of the voting in bolivia and agree they need to prevent the ongoing crap the usa throws at them by taking a number of actions here to alter this happening again..

as for the usa - i don't believe it matters who wins... the usa is on a slippery downhill slope... it must be especially frustrating for ordinary people in the states who feel that no matter how they vote, it matters not... chaos is on tap from nov 3rd right into inauguration day jan 20th as i see it... it ain't gonna be pretty...

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2020 16:13 utc | 1

Hopefully the MAS have learnt the lesson and the coup mongers will be properly dealt with, and the military and the police have the US lackies removed.

I have to agree with respect to the US election, the deja vu feeling is getting more intense. The one positive with Trump is that as a Canadian there may not be any new wars for our US poodle politicians to dutifully follow the US into. In addition, Trump is quite a good wrecking ball for US hegemony - another positive. Other than that, very little real difference in policies with Biden - the Democrats have become the consigliere to the Don.

Posted by: Roger | Oct 19 2020 16:18 utc | 2

No matter who was the President, the Covid-19 response was destined to fail for 2 reasons MSM refuses to talk about:

1. The Public Health infrastructure is in shambles because it does not lend itself to monetized regulatory capture as most other Executive Branch functions have been.

2. The American Diet is controlled by food products that are more Pharma/Chemical than Agriculture. It makes the American populace one of the most unhealthy on the Planet.

Posted by: Enrico Malatesta | Oct 19 2020 16:22 utc | 3

@b "If I had a vote in the upcoming election it would likely go to where it does the least harm - to some third party candidate who argues for more peaceful and more socialist policies."

That's what I would do also, if the third party candidate had even an outside chance of winning. Sadly, that is not how the U.S. presidential electoral system works. The electoral college rules that were written into the Constitution made it inevitable that only two parties would vie for power. If you think I am wrong, consider the fact that the last viable American third party was the Republican Party which formed in the mid-nineteenth century and sent the Whig Party into the dustbin of history, leaving, again, only two major parties. Third parties have popped up from time to time, but they were all short-lived.

The inescapable logic of this system is that votes for third party presidential candidates might as well not be cast. They may make the voters feel better about themselves doing "the least harm," but they also do the least good, as they have zero impact on the outcome.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 19 2020 16:33 utc | 4

If you didn't vote then stop your whining! That goes for the whole planet.

Either Russia is the enemy or socialism is the enemy. Its either commie Putin or the commie DLC that is not MAGA ing enough.

Dont waste your time voting.

Posted by: Jason | Oct 19 2020 16:33 utc | 5

or the TL;DR version. Trump may win again for the exact same reasons as last time and with team D committing the exact same unforced errors from four years ago.

Posted by: thepanzer | Oct 19 2020 16:34 utc | 6

Re: the horse race.

The 2016 polls did predict the popular vote, the problem was the electoral vote. This time Biden seems able to win the electoral vote.

As for the crowds at rallies, Biden voters don't go to rallies because they don't want to catch covid, while Trump voters believe covid is a hoax.

It's true that there is zero enthusiasm for Biden and his policies. But this election will be a straight up referendum on how Trump has handled the epidemic. That doesn't mean Joe will handle it any better.

Posted by: Dan Lynch | Oct 19 2020 16:41 utc | 7

I still think it's hilarious that Crooked Hillary ran a lazy, sloppily unfocused campaign whilst Trump was campaigning his ass off. Then she had the Chutzpah to get all angry & indignant when she lost. Some people, who have to WORK to put food on the table, would have voted for Trump out of sheer admiration for his energy and dedication to the task.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 19 2020 16:54 utc | 8

The problem with voting for a third option is one of the two you oppose wins.
So you have done no good for an ephemeral vote that does not stop the greater of two evils. Biden has to be rejected. So Trump has to be supported.

The sad choice last time was to defeat Hillary Clinton. We did.
This time, stop Biden-Harris and the return of Obama (whose organization has masterminded Biden's victory in the primaries and this whole charade of a campaign.)

You want wars? You want more Russophobia? You want more Liberal Cult? Waste the vote.

Trump will be most concerned with carving his name into history with Infrastructure, a new greener electrical grid, rebuilding urban centers, creating a health system that is better and cheaper and all can access, and getting left wing ideology out of the educational system.

Is he a great choice? He's the only choice. And considering what he was up against he has done well. I don't agree with most of his actions in the ME, but he has not made things to continue as they were. I don't like the trade war with China, but it was probably inevitable. Remember this: he never had a day without some powerful entity within the Shadow Government and Deep State trying to cripple his Presidency or end his term in office.

His economy before Covid-19 was pulling people out of poverty, improving wages, creating new jobs and small enterprises were thriving. All good for people of color and blue collar workers.

He deserves another four years. There is no other alternative.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Oct 19 2020 16:55 utc | 9

I am convinced Trump will lose by a large majority due to the fundamental desire of humans for stability over chaos. Trump has created and will continue to create chaos. I am not of the opinion chaos is inherently bad; I can think up any number of ways that Trumpian chaos has been a good thing. Nevertheless, in the lives of most people, stability matters a great deal, and there has been a notable decrease in it under Trump. Will chaos decrease under Biden? It will decrease somewhat when coronavirus subsides, and he may get credit for that. However, on the other hand, there is no remedy in sight for the ongoing sinking of the US Titanic. Biden and any Democratic majorities will also get the credit for that, when the bottom falls out, regardless of how incessantly the DNC and MSM attempt to blame Trump and the Republicans.

Posted by: Joseph Dillard | Oct 19 2020 16:57 utc | 10

Bolivia has won.

Not MAS has won or some particular candidates have won, but Bolivia has won.

The headline makes the point clearly that this fight has been the empire against Bolivia. Elon Musk will have to pay a fair price for his lithium now, and the compradores will have to accept their loss of power.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 17:06 utc | 11

to Karlov1 saw your #53

yours is 1 of most educational voices aboard.
Thank you and look forward to your early return...somewhere sometime.
Meanwhile, bestest to you and yours.

Note that many times I not post to acknowledge outstanding content bec feared the unworkable clutter of so many acks if all readers followed the usual policy in person-to-person speech. Yet not to ack in blog world is mistaken for ignore. A conundrum.

Posted by: chu teh | Oct 19 2020 17:08 utc | 12

Craig Murray refers to the Biden debacle as well considering the problem of internet censorship

His conclusion

"An early part of that thinking out of the box needs to relate to internet architecture and finding a way that the social media gatekeepers can be bypassed – not by a few activists, but by the bulk of the population. We used to say the internet will always find a work-around, and there are optimists who believe that the kind of censorship we saw over Hunter Biden will lead to a flight to alternative platforms, but I don’t see that happening on the scale required. Regulation to prevent censorship is improbable – governments are much more interested in regulation to impose more censorship."

Posted by: Bluedotterel | Oct 19 2020 17:16 utc | 13

On most domestic issues Trump is only slightly to the right of a Biden/Harris administration. His foreign policy is less warmongering but more chaotic than a Democratic administration would likely be.

Posted by b on October 19, 2020 at 16:03 UTC | Permalink

Actally Trump has been the most aggressive US President for the last 30 years (Even his book is called Time to get Tough).

What happens if those who bet on Trump get an even bigger Cold War, including nuclear war-mongering coming after them? He is trashing the framework of nuclear arms control, prompting the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to proclaim that we’re closer to nuclear war than ever before.

Trump’s famous promise to “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) should have come with the caveat that he planned to do so by provoking a New Cold War with China and Russia. He led his supporters into thinking that he meant to focus more on internal issues than international ones, which some in hindsight wrongly portrayed as quasi-isolationalism. Lo and behold, however, MAGA has arguably turned into the most aggressive US foreign policy in decades, which makes it extremely dangerous for global stability.

Truth be told, Trump did imply something of the sort while on the campaign trail, but few realized how far he intended to go. He’s known for ranting about China’s trade policies so many foresaw the trade war that followed his election, but the scale and scope of his anti-Chinese policies likely surprised even the most rabid anti-communist elements of his base. Trump didn’t just try to broker a new trade deal, but took aim at China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), some of its tech companies like Huawei and TikTok, and its territorial integrity.

Since the beginning of this year, he’s also ridiculously claimed that China is responsible for COVID-19. Secretary of State Pompeo rattled the US Hybrid War saber earlier this summer during his landmark speech at the Nixon Library, which was followed up by Trump’s dramatic address to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) last week that compared China to Nazi Germany. So serious are US-Chinese tensions as a result of this unprovoked onslaught that UN Secretary General Guterres opened the UNGA debate by warning against a “New Cold War”.

It’s not just China that’s victimized by Trump’s MAGA strategy but Russia as well despite Trump’s opponents continuing to claim that he’s under the influence of Moscow. He once bragged about how “I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President”, pointing to his intense sanctions regime against the country that he once promised on the campaign trail to partner with. NATO has also expanded its military forces and infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders during this time too.

On top of that, the Trump Administration has been accused by Russia and Belarus of orchestrating the latest political unrest in the latter, and is also currently trying to assemble a coalition against Russia’s Nord Stream II pipeline with Germany. Russia’s Turkish Stream pipeline with Turkey and the Balkans is also being threatened as well. Not only that, but anti-Russian spy scandals are a dime a dozen nowadays in the US and its NATO allies, which serve the purpose of creating pretexts for imposing even more sanctions pressure on Moscow.

There’s a method to this madness, however, and it’s important to point it out in order to expose the truth about how Trump’s MAGA strategy operates. The three most common denominators linking the US’ Hybrid Wars on China and Russia are geopolitics, economics, and fake news. America wants to “contain” both countries, to which end it’s increased its military presence in the South China Sea and Eastern Europe respectively, while targeting BRI, Chinese tech companies, and Russian energy ones using fake news.

The Trump Administration believes that the combined effect of these three simultaneous Hybrid War fronts against what it regards as its two main rivals will result in “decoupling” them from their primary partners across the world, thereby leading to their “isolation”. As a means to that end, the US is provoking a New Cold War, the acknowledgement of which debunks the notion that MAGA is a “peaceful”, “inward-looking”, “isolationist” strategy. To the contrary, it’s the most aggressive and dangerous US foreign policy in decades.

He relies on the military in order to stay in power, this is why he likes them and raises their budgets a lot. He likes generals. He likes big weapons. Big bombs. Big army. Military parades. Glory to the US. This is his way of thinking. He is not isolationist at all and has done everyting possible to prop up imperialism.

He pushed for a space force and starting military parades in Washington with big entusiasm. He said that he could nuke Afghanistan. He said that the US should have taken Iraq's oil long before becoming a President. And constantly brags about having "bigger nuclear button", "bigger weapons", etc.

He is the most imperialist president for the last 30 years. He thinks that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are stupid only because they distract from the main aim: to rearm, start a new Cold War, and smash Russia and China, who are the real enemy. And subdue everyone else, including the EU.

Posted by: Passer by | Oct 19 2020 17:21 utc | 14

I plan to vote for Mr. Potato Head. Not voting signals apathy. Voting for neither evil signals protest.

There is no other choice . Democrats stand a corrupt, senescent empty suit whose major achievement in life was to survive long enough to float to the top, like pond scum. And Republicans run Trump, the emoji for despicable.

As for Bolivia, the answer is in the training of the military. They have to discontinue training by the US’ School of the America’s, AKA School for War Criminals, and substitute some socialist training. My understanding is that Chavez survived because his world view was widely shared in the military.

Posted by: JohnH | Oct 19 2020 17:33 utc | 15

While most polls show that Joe Biden will win the U.S. election my gut is telling me that Donald Trump will have a second term. The election might well become a repeat of 2016 when Trump won even though most media had predicted that Hillary Clinton would win.

I don't care who wins. I just want it to be extremely close - preferably, decided by fraud a la Bush vs Gore in Florida 2000.

With a contestable election, the USA will then plunge even more in internal divisions, leaving more space for the rest of the world to breathe.

As for the enthusiasm thing. My guess is the "foot soldiers" of the Democratic Party, the people who historically go house to house to do campaign for the party, migrated to Bernie Sanders. When Bernie Sanders was robbed of the nomination twice in a row, the Democratic Party essentially lost its "foot soldiers". In my opinion, this was a calculated risk: the DNC certainly knew it would happen, and decided they were not worth the risk of nominating a socialist.

Posted by: vk | Oct 19 2020 17:39 utc | 16

Red Ryder @Oct19 16:55 #9

The problem with voting for a third option is one of the two you oppose wins.

The problem with this POV is that it fails to recognize that the Duopoly is controlled by the Deep State and duopoly candidates work for oligarchs and lobbyists, not the people.

Faux "populist outsiders" Trump and Obama has proven that this is so.

DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE by voting for a duopoly candidate.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 17:40 utc | 17

Passer by @Oct19 17:21 #14

Actally Trump has been the most aggressive US President for the last 30 years


b is waaay too easy on Trump. Both with the pandemic and with Trump's belligerence.

b's excuse that the Democrats would've been the same is just that: an excuse. Unless that excuse is put into the context of the Deep State's control of the duopoly and that BOTH Presidential candidates are loyal to the Deep State.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 17:47 utc | 18

I said not too long ago on one of these comment threads not to pay attention to the polls. If CNN phoned you to ask if you would vote for Donald Trump there is a large percentage who would lie and say no. Remember also the polls in 2016 for Hillary ? The key area to look at was voter registration and that is where the Republicans as you point out have gained the advantage. Going door to door.

The secind point you make is key too. There is a genuine enthusiasm at Trump rallies. I have seen YouTube videos where not only is there a mass attendance but there are people lining the streets just to see him. It’s incredible to see.

The third key point for why he will win is the violence unleashed by leftists mobs BLM, Antifa with the tacit support of the Democrats. That has really come back to bite them in the arse. Biden wouldn’t even admit that Antifa exists. Called them just an idea! The burning, the looting, the toppling iof statues, the murders followed up by proposals to defund the police. If you defund the police who is going to protect mom and pop America ? Not the Democrats. This has cost them dearly.

Posted by: Down South | Oct 19 2020 17:48 utc | 19

Trump has performed the most provocative acts in his first time in order to secure his second term. ( Israel, China Russia) and to mark himself against Obama.
He succeded. He has been shaken by the fear of the virus attack on him and his family and the worrying impact on his re election campaign. If elected, he may calm down and make provocative acts in the opposite direction, more positive. He will think more about his legacy away from wars and tensions.
Biden is hopeless and the Dem party corrupted to the bones. Nothing good can come out of him and his party.

Despite Trump's recklessness and near hysterical behavior, he is now predictable and can be managed.
I believe he will win.

Posted by: Virgile | Oct 19 2020 17:48 utc | 20

This election is obviously a verdict on Trump, as it generally is when there's a presidential incumbent. That's why attacks on Biden or Harris are not having their usual effect: no one cares. You like the last four years or you hate them; that's the choice.

Folks lining the streets to cheer Trump in California? Seriously? He's going to lose CA by a record margin. I mean several million. He is absolutely hated here by most.

Biden is going to win because he's not Trump and because Trump's chaotic governance is scary for people in a pandemic. The early voting (27 million people have already voted with more than two weeks left) is indicative of a LARGE turnout ... very bad for Repubs.

I have voted Green since Nader in 2000 ... I held my nose and sent a ballot Biden's way this time. Planned obsolescence and slow decline are preferable to fire and fury :) ...

Posted by: Caliman | Oct 19 2020 17:56 utc | 21

- Biden/Harris are empty suits for the 'Globalists'
- Obama was an empty suit for the 'Globalists'
- W. was an empty suit for the 'Globalists'
- Clinton was an empty suit for the 'Globalists'

For 30 years the U.S. has been failing under the rule of the 'Globalists'.

Trump will try to prevent the final collapse.

Biden/Harris will go to war to have somebody to blame for the final collapse. And the 'Globalists' will have succeeded in converting the U.S. from an Empire into their Colony.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Oct 19 2020 17:57 utc | 22

Good news for Bolivia and hopefully Trump is tossed, no matter what hijinks he attempts after the vote. Next up will be pressuring Biden to forget about business as usual.

Posted by: Mike Adamson | Oct 19 2020 17:59 utc | 23

Posted by: Virgile | Oct 19 2020 17:48 utc | 21

Actually he seems to be obsessed with harming Russia and China and cementing a new Cold War, even if he loses the election due to that.

Why is he so desperate to get out of the START Nuclear Treaty with Russia just before the election?

He behaves as if he knows that he will lose the election and wants to cement the new Cold War in his remaining time.

He is a military puppet and it shows.

Ask yourself who in the US wants to trash the framework of nuclear arms control. The military, obviously.

Posted by: Passer by | Oct 19 2020 17:59 utc | 24

The NYT recently ran a hagiographic story about Biden in the 1960s. While the Times' story paints Biden's political background as positive, the story shows that Biden has always been a pompous, elitist asshole:

"And when Mr. Biden and his friends from Syracuse University law school happened upon antiwar protesters at the chancellor’s office — the kind of Vietnam-era demonstration that galvanized so much of their generation — his group stepped past with disdain. They were going for pizza."

pizza over protest. Biden deserves to lose.

Posted by: Prof K | Oct 19 2020 18:05 utc | 25

It isn't true that the polls had it wrong in '16. They accurately predicted that Clinton would win the popular vote. Trump's electoral college victory was the result of winning three "swing" states by less than 80 thousand votes. There is nothing to suggest that anything like that is going to happen again. Those states are trending strongly toward Biden. Trump has pulled his advertising. His fundraising has dried up. He is being heavily outspent. Trump is in trouble even in states that have been traditionally won by Republicans by wide margins. It is telling that Republicans officeholders are now publicly distancing themselves from him, even in a state like Texas.

Trump won the presidency with fewer votes than Romney received when he lost. While there is no passionate support for Biden, he does not carry the high level of negative opinions that Clinton had in '16. People who are expecting Trump to prevail are not looking closely at the facts. I find Biden loathsome but there is ample reason for believing that he is going to win.

Posted by: David | Oct 19 2020 18:13 utc | 26

Virgile @Oct19 17:48 #21

If elected, he may calm down and make provocative acts in the opposite direction, more positive. He will think more about his legacy away from wars and tensions.

That's funny because I have little doubt that Trump will start a real war in his second term.

His first term has been a prelude in which he mixes attempts to make peace with hostile actions and belligerent rhetoric.

After the pretense of defeating the corrupt Democrats and their Deep State cronies (an easy 'victory' arranged by the true Deep State) to win a second term, Trump will have the legitimacy to take the country to war.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 18:18 utc | 27

Sky News Australia did an interview with Steve Bannon about the Hunter Biden emails. Interesting interview about the origin of the hard drives and their authenticity and what they contain.

Posted by: Down South | Oct 19 2020 18:19 utc | 28

For 30 years the U.S. has been failing under the rule of the 'Globalists'.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Oct 19 2020 17:57 utc | 23

Trump is dismantling global intitutions, including nuclear arms control, who no longer serve the US but he is not dismantling the US Empire (see the demands on Europe to pay more for NATO). There is big difference between the two.

The new Trump's empire will not be "the international community", or the IMF, or the "West", but the US itself. Everybody and everything else must be a puppet. Now it is out in the open. Only Washington must have the power. Not international institutions. Not the EU. Not the UN. The role of the EU will be to be a puppet and nothing else.

The rest of the anglo-states will become full fledged 51 first states.

Simply now imperialism will be out in the open, to be seen by all, and it will be good old fashioned "American", and not "International" or "Globalist".

Alastair Crooke has been describing this change to Trumpian-style naked US imperialism for some time, most recently in his piece on the INF treaty

It is simply a choice between a "Globalist Empire" - Biden, or a "US Empire" - Trump.

Not much of a choice.

Posted by: Passer by | Oct 19 2020 18:21 utc | 29

If I was the one pulling strings from the dark, and unavoidable collapse of the state is at the horizon, I too would put most offensive, polarizing, affair prone distraction at the helm of the state to keep people glued at the TV gimmicks and away from the real things going on (like robbing everyone blind and entrenching my position). And when the SHTF he will be the convenient scapegoat and disposed.

US has Trump, UK has BoJo... They are not going anywhere.

Posted by: Abe | Oct 19 2020 18:26 utc | 30


I'll believe it when the legitimate President of Bolivia, MAS's Luis Arce is actually sworn in. Checked Pompeo's twitter and there is eerie silence. That creep shoots his mouth off about everything. He has not acknowledged the election results. Mordor is planning their next move.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Oct 19 2020 18:31 utc | 31

Sad to see supposedly intelligent people confusing words with deeds. Trump is a loudmouth blowhard (or at least he plays one on TV), but the fact remains that he has not started any new wars. That makes him relatively unique among living presidents. Clinton's expected win in 2016 was ready to be sold by the mass media as a mandate for hot war against Syria, which means the US would be in hot war with Russia right now instead of these fits and starts towards cold war that we have been seeing. There is a big difference between Trump doing the Commander in Chief version of his Wrestlemania rants and actually ordering in the troops to destroy another country.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 18:34 utc | 32

Re vk Oct 19 2020 17:39 #16

Agree, very much. Bring color revolutions home. Let the US consume itself and perhaps that will spare the world its chaos.

I say this and I live in the US and am totally disgusted with the two major parties and the button pushing rich and powerful elites behind the curtain.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Oct 19 2020 18:38 utc | 33

Its only words.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 18:34 utc | 33

William, what is the point of Trump exiting 30 year old nuclear arms control agreements?

I do not see anything good in that.

Posted by: Passer by | Oct 19 2020 18:40 utc | 34

Interesting that people are talking about Biden as if he were the intended prez, as if voting for him were the Blue Face aim. Surely the more likely aim and reality it is that a vote for Biden is, in fact, a vote for Harris, if not for the first year or two but certainly for some part of the four year term. And who on earth would vote for her other than those high on the so-called "progressive" diversity drug?

My third choice, oddly, was not the Greens under Howie Hawkins, but the Libertarians; I wrote in my preference which of course means nothing at all beyond protest. This is not, not democracy. Indeed it never, really, was, nor was it intended to be a true democracy as those so-called FFs knew and worked to avoid.

I gather that the Hunter Biden emails are now being declared Russian disinformation or a Russian plot (akin to that one which revealed the DNC's ensuring of Sanders' exclusion). The Cold War on Russia never really ended (China was re-incorporated under Obama and his pivot). There was a brief break while the drunk Yeltsin, with Clinton by his side directing traffic, permitted the rape and plunder of Russia's economy and natural resources by the west and Russian oligarchs (in co-operation). And then the Cold War resumed once V. Putin became president and put and end to the western plunder.

Moreover and saliently, the vast majority of the ruling elites-polity, be they in Congress, the WH, the various bureaucracies, agencies linked to or benefiting from the MIC, are of the generation who grew up under the first Cold War and their worldview was shaped by the long-lasting profound anti-communist propaganda machine. And then there's that deep belief - as so well expressed by Albright - held by both heads of the Janus party, Red and Blue - that America is the true because truly exceptional world power...

Biden or Trump - nothing will change either globally (war, war, war) or domestically (profound and ever increasing poverty among the working classes) because neither (so-called) party wants (because none of their backers and chums want) anything to change on any front except for a few little diversity tweaks here and there.

Posted by: Anne | Oct 19 2020 18:41 utc | 35

Congratulations to Bolivia! They took their country back from crooks, including the despicable Musk. Well done Bolivia!

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 19 2020 18:47 utc | 36

@thepanzer | Oct 19 2020 16:34 utc | 6

or the TL;DR version. Trump may win again for the exact same reasons as last time and with team D committing the exact same unforced errors from four years ago.

Do you see a pattern? No error maybe? The whole thing is theater.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 19 2020 18:51 utc | 37

"what is the point of Trump exiting 30 year old nuclear arms control agreements?"

Requirement of the job. The US was already in violation with the $trillion that Obomber authorized for "upgrades" to the US nuclear arsenal, so exiting the treaties was necessary. It doesn't matter who was president at the time since the circumstances were already put in motion that would force the issue.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 18:52 utc | 38

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 18:52 utc | 39

Thus it is not only words.

And Trump is getting out of the "stupid wars" (Afghanistan, Iraq) simply in order to concentrate on the big fish (a Cold War with China and Russia).

Posted by: Passer by | Oct 19 2020 18:58 utc | 39

A brilliant and reflective posting, b.

You cited two reasons why your gut feeling steers you towards the likelihood of a Trump victory in two weeks: efficacy of each party's 'get out the vote' efforts; polling inaccuracies prior to the actual ballot. I agree with your gut feeling but see a different crucial factor at play. I sense that American people are at a stage of subconsciously sensing the onset of difficult times and desperation. It is at a stage of wanting their leaders to be mean, blatant, and ruthless. Someone like Trump fits the bill. Someone like Trump will get the nod from most of them.

Americans see China, Russia, Iran, et al overcoming the oppressive tactics that four POTUS in a row used in trying to subjugate them, and yet seem to be doing well. They are mighty jealous; they are mighty desperate; they want a leadership that is stupid enough to resort to war to get what they want and need. It is the gangster era in US politics. Gangster Trump is gonna win.

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 19 2020 19:00 utc | 40

My take is pretty much the opposite of Rob #4. To me, since they just offer up the status quo each presenting with minor variations, to vote for either of the two major party candidates is a wasted vote. Your impact would be zilch in terms of any kind of meaningful impact on outcomes.

But when you consider that non-voters comprise the largest bloc of the electorate, (and it's safe to say the majority of these are alienated from a system that doesn't offer a true alternative), rather than remain silent, if these people were to express themselves at the polls... vote their conscience rather than being caught up in the trap of strategic voting... you would likely see big numbers going for candidates/parties that do have something to offer, e.g., Green Party, Socialist Party.. And believe me, if this happened, the power brokers would take notice. This would at least be a means of applying some pressure/leverage. As it is, you can be safely ignored.

But the main thing that motivates me is slightly different than what I just expressed above. What it comes down to for me is that I don't want to/can't support Empire. In other words, I don't want blood on my hands. I know whichever of the two major party candidates get in there I'm going to be railing against their imperial policies. What kind of sense does it make to be so strongly opposed to this and yet at the same time endorse it with my vote?
I feel guilty enough just living here and paying taxes much less adding that to my burden. And what kind of hypocrite would I have to be to do that? Never mind that.. what kind of human being? I don't know about anybody else, but I still have to be able to look at myself in the mirror every day... and I know what I have to do. So those other considerations you can pretty much throw out the window as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Steve M | Oct 19 2020 19:00 utc | 41

William Gruff @Oct19 18:34 #33

the fact remains that he has not started any new wars.

No. Trump has started or continued several wars. But the small countries that he has picked on haven't responded to Trump's hostility in a way that would invite their destruction.

Trump's Acts of War

  • Trump unjustifiably attacked Syria with missiles TWICE and occupies their oil fields while imposing harsh sanctions that make it difficult for them to buy oil from others.
  • Trump assassinated Iranian General Soleimani. This was an illegal act that US Troops paid a price for.
  • Trump continues to provide crucial support (weapons, logistics, targeting, etc.) for Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen.
  • Trump reneged on his "Peace Agreement" with North Korea.
  • Trump's third-party sanctions on Iran constitute a virtual embargo - which is an act of war.
  • Trump has terminated numerous Cold War era peace treaties and JCPOA.
  • Trump has defied the UN and US decades of US middle east policy by moving US Embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Golan Heights as Israeli territory. He has also greatly reduced aid to the Palestinians and is supportive of the Israel's annexation of the West Bank.
  • For decades USA recognized the Palestinians as a nation with a right to have their own country via the "two-state solution". In this context, Trump's actions are acts of war against the Palestinian nation.
  • Trump supported a coup in Venezuela and backed that with the seizure of Venezuelan oil foreign assets (oil company and gold).
  • Trump is pushing HARD to terminate NordStream II. Traditionally, such interference in strategic geopolitical relations would be seen as an act of war.
  • Trump has militarized space. Russians and Chinese may have satellite killer technology but USA has gone well beyond to actually create a 'space force' with the intention of dominating space. Some may see this as a provocation rather than an act of war but it certainly means future frictions that could lead to war.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 19:00 utc | 42

As 'the people' are being encouraged to resist the election of 'the other' to the point of violence by each of the monopoly two-party system's media networks, one assumes chaos wins no matter which candidate wins on November 3. When it comes to quashing 'civil unrest' either candidate will do.

Posted by: gottlieb | Oct 19 2020 19:01 utc | 43

Norwegian @38

Why do you assume that the establishment/oligarchy is infallible? What makes you think they really have a handle on what is happening? They just misjudged and got their asses handed to them in Bolivia, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan. Their economic war against China is hurting them far more than China. PNAC hasn't advanced an inch in more than half a decade when they were originally planning on "Seven countries in five years!"

Sure, it's theater, but the cast has totally lost the script and are just incoherently ad libbing left and right, the curtains are on fire, the audience is throwing rotten veggies at the stage, and the stage managers still have no idea how things got to this point.

Yeah, it's theater, but as performances go it is a farce.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 19:04 utc | 44

Well done, Bolivia. I think this is actually far more important than the US election at this time in history. It's a clear demonstration of the power of the people united in solidarity, and the example can be seen emulated in other parts of the American continent also.

Here's an interesting nuance from the report at the Saker, that I don't know enough to appraise, but it seems valid:

The Añez/Murillo/Mesa coup could take place a year ago because Evo Morales could not hold onto the loyalty of his military – they were open to bribery. The amazing thing that I saw following the election, is the clear move from military figures toward MAS. Perhaps the bribe money ran out, or they found that the promises by the coup government were only promises or perhaps they saw the wholesale looting of their country as soon as the coup government took over.

- Bolivia – The people won, against all the odds, the people still won


I remember when Naomi Klein gave a talk about the Shock Doctrine, one key point she made was that the good news was that countries could learn to resist. South America was one of the earliest recipients of the disaster-capitalism, neoliberal, asset-stripping methodology - and thus one of the first areas to recover from it and to organize against it.

The point is that South America can serve as an example for North America. The Demonstration Effect will make its impression over the course of events. Personally, I give it about 30 years before the US has rallied sufficiently from its degeneration - much of which is still to come - in order to benefit from the example of what will ultimately be a collection of successful, happy and strong socialist countries to the south.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 19 2020 19:14 utc | 45

@Abe | Oct 19 2020 18:26 utc | 31
That sounds about right. It is always about distractions.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 19 2020 19:15 utc | 46

Let it put it that way: your guts are out of their mind, B. And no, a vote for some third candidate does indeed harm. It's a lost vote.

I agree that again the candidate selection is outright awful, but this time we have the advantage of having the experience of four Tronald years. We now know he is a climate heating denier, a super spreader and polluter who encourages likeminded people all over the world and will possibly not start a war with Russia but with China. Which doesn't make much of a difference.

He is what his country deserves, but not the rest of us.

Posted by: pnyx | Oct 19 2020 19:15 utc | 47

Bunny: "Trump allowed what was already in progress when he was sworn in to continue, and that is the same thing as starting a new war!"

No bunny, it is not the same thing.

What's with Americans these days that they are hysterical and have no sense of proportion? It's like the "woke" who think that laughing at a Black kid who is wearing his trousers around his knees is the same thing as lynching him. Trump childishly calling Kim Jong-un names is not an act of war, no matter what the hysterical tube watchers might think about it.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 19:16 utc | 48

One more time. Mail-in ballots in most states must be postmarked by November 3, ballots will be received until November 10. There will be no election result on November4. There will be the beginning of a knockdown drag-out fight. Very difficult to imagine a landslide for either dope. It is going to be pure chaos. A long period of chaos. No matter the final outcome, large parts of the population will not believe it. Even a landslide in the first round will not be believed.

Posted by: oldhippie | Oct 19 2020 19:19 utc | 49

b, yet again, since you don't seem to get it.

The US is a federation of (sorta) sovereign states, analogous to the EU, except the central government of the US is democratically chosen, not self-appointed like the EU bureaucracy. As such, responsibility for public health and safety lies with the state governors and city mayors. The federal government can intervene only where there is some overriding interstate problem. Interstate pollution is one of those, national defense another. The President and the federal government are mostly powerless to impose lockdowns or to police the streets. Biden, Obama, even Franklin Roosevelt could not have done more than Trump.

You are not alone in your confusion. The great majority of the American media are also unaware of the federal nature of the US government.

Posted by: bob sykes | Oct 19 2020 19:23 utc | 50

I live in Orange County CA close to where Trump made his visit on Sunday, and drove past said event, and I have to make a report to correct B's assertions. Yes, there is a vocal minority of Trump supporters here, among the wealthy and some so-called deplorables. However, he will be losing CA in a landslide, and furthermore, all the downticket races in OC are tilting heavily Dem. The local and state Republican parties are a laughingstock due to their puppeting of party views on Covid. The Rep Senate challenger is mainly famous for noting that dogs don't need to wear masks for Covid and therefore, requiring humans to do so is 'speciesism.' The OC Board of Education (an advisory board, not the real school board) voted to have schools resume in-person classes immediately and without requiring masks or social distancing. These loonies are Trump are being both mocked and outcampaigned. In short, there is no hidden groundswell of support for Trump in California, and the Republican Party is being dragged down with him.

It should also be noted that Trump was here for fundraising, not campaigning, which really indicates that he is short of money. When he did flybys in Michigan and Wisconsin, those did not go well either, so it's definitely not 2016, and Trump has lost his mojo outside of his core cult followers.

As a Bernie supporter, I'm well aware of who Biden represents, but the election really is the choice of the lesser of two evils, and from my PoV the momentum is all against Trump and still building.

Posted by: Roy G | Oct 19 2020 19:24 utc | 51

@William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 19:04 utc | 45

Why do you assume that the establishment/oligarchy is infallible?

I don't think they are infallible. The fact that they are trying does not mean they will succeed. I am rather seeing a pattern of insanity (ref. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.")

I do agree with what you say about the failures in Belarus and now Bolivia. We could add more examples, but some of these examples are indeed very dangerous failures, even if indeed it is farcical theater.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 19 2020 19:24 utc | 52

Your gut is seriously mistaken. Trump will lose because there are well over 200,000 dead and an economy in shambles in the US as a result of Trump’s incompetent and Covid response.

Posted by: TimmyB | Oct 19 2020 19:30 utc | 53

re: Red Ryder
pure BS on all points.
Trump is a fake Republican and a total submissive dog to Jews/Israel. Nothing good can come out of him.

Trump's economy: major retail chains collapsing/going out of business. 50% of All Americans unable to pay their bills. More homeless than ever before. The ONLY thing doing great is the Stock Market ONLY because the Fed is doing QE and throwing literally billions at the banks who give it to the companies who buy back their stocks and raise the stock prices. Zero-hedge documented all that quite well until 2020. the Stock Market isn't the economy. Inflation in USA is at least 8-12%, NOT the 2% the gov says.

Trump's foreigner policy: Attack Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, EU and anybody else who wont submit to USA. trying to provoke China into a hot war. Kissing Jew's ass anyway possible.
Trump tried to start a war with Iran but was stopped by Mattis. A 2nd trump presidency will almost certainly see a US war against Iran.

Biden: no better.

BIden's economy: major retail chains collapsing/going out of business. 50% of All Americans unable to pay their bills. More homeless than ever before. The ONLY thing doing great is the Stock Market ONLY because the Fed is doing QE and throwing literally billions at the banks who give it to the companies who buy back their stocks and raise the stock prices. Zero-hedge documented all that quite well until 2020. the Stock Market isn't the economy. Inflation in USA is at least 8-12%, NOT the 2% the gov says.

Biden's foreigner policy: Attack Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, EU and anybody else who wont submit to USA. trying to provoke Russia into a hot war. Kissing Jew's ass anyway possible. A 2nd trump presidency will almost certainly see a US war against Russia.

USA is fukked either way. the world rejoices.

Posted by: Hoyeru | Oct 19 2020 19:33 utc | 54

I think Bernie Sanders should have been third candidate after DNC screwed him for second time in four years. F*ck them, Bernie has a wide and loyal voters base and it could be a win.

Posted by: V. | Oct 19 2020 19:38 utc | 55

Who's worse Trump or Biden?

Even if Biden is as bad as Trump or slightly worse in some areas it is good to vote out the brutish warmonger every 4yrs so that the Bully & Chief cannot consolidate power over 8yrs.

Trump didn't start any wars ... YES HE DID! It is only dumb luck that we didn't get into a butcherfest w/Iran.

Iran gave us 5 hours warning so that we could evacuate Al Asad airbase and our numbskull commanders had our guys hunker down into mortar pits. If there were any deaths in Iran's missile strike then Trump would have been compelled to launch an attack on Iranian territory and the IRGC would have launched 3 follow up salvo of ballistic missiles only this time hitting massed U.S. troops.

Trump started a war and it was only Iran's restraint and luck that kept it from escalating.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Oct 19 2020 19:39 utc | 56

And... back here in reality there is currently no war with Iran.

Iraq showed restraint. Libya was a model of restraint. The rebels in Ukraine have shown nothing but restraint. That didn't prevent the slaughter.

People should stop the hyperventilating and deal with reality, which in this cased is that as horrible a person as Trump may be, he is a far better human being that Obomber, who started multiple REAL wars.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 19 2020 19:48 utc | 57

Oriental Voice @Oct19 19:00 #41

Gangster Trump

This is a good moniker for Trump as it brings out the nature of the Deep State.

The 'gang' includes Hillary, Biden, Bushes, neocons, CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 19:50 utc | 58

Passer by @14 & 30--

The equivalence isn't exact, but Trump in many ways reminds me of Stalin, particularly Stalin as painted by Outlaw US Empire propaganda. Recall the eager backing he got from the Military and his initial go-to people to staff his admin were all of that ilk. Recall that Tillerson was a hawk on Russia and China. And as you note, he's elevated Hybrid Warfare to new heights while expanding their dangers. As for driving wedges, where Trump's succeeded is in further isolating the Outlaw US Empire from the genuine International Community and further degraded the fundamental strength of the USA--its Human Capital and the infrastructure that supports it.

Grieved @46--

Must agree with you appraisal about Bolivia and beyond. Little about Mexico gets mentioned, but AMLO is growing stronger as his administration continues.

Chu teh @12--

Thanks for your support, and do see my question to you about your comment about Wilson.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 19 2020 19:54 utc | 59

You are right about a Trump win. But, Viva Bolivia!

Posted by: j. casey | Oct 19 2020 20:03 utc | 60

Trump won in 2016 because he was seen by enough people in WI, MI and PA as an outsider with new ideas who should be given a chance. That gave him enough votes to perform the electoral equivalent of rolling snake eyes, and doing it three times in a row.

Now that we are in 2020, we have seen what Trump is capable of. Mostly, he has governed as a meaner, more dysfunctional version of Dubya, right down to the neocon retreads. Admittedly, he hasn't stated any major new wars, but that's largely because the easy targets are gone and Iran and Syria have shown remarkable forbearance so far.

I wouldn't bet on him being able to do it again another three times.

Posted by: Feral Finster | Oct 19 2020 20:04 utc | 61

V. @Oct19 19:38 #56

... DNC screwed him [Sanders] for second time in four years.

Bernie was a sheepdog. He wasn't fighting to win. He was there to screw his dumbass lefty supporters who are led to believe that Democracy Works(tm). You voice is your vote! LOL.

Ask yourself: If Sanders could raise significant funds from his supporters (as he did) and he has such a strong following (as he did), why did he need to go on a quixotic, futile quest to take over the Democratic Party? Why not just start an independent Movement and run as an independent? Or better yet, 'take over' the Green Party and run as the Green Party nominee?

You were had. You got fooled. Swindled by your trust in a closet Zionist that is in bed with all the top politicians in the corrupt system that works for THEM and not you.

Audre Lorde: "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House".


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 20:04 utc | 62

Not only he didn't start any new wars, and prevented total destruction of Syria (and possibly parts of Iraq), but he also renegotiated NAFTA and introduced significant tariffs, thus stopping (or at least slowing down) de-industrialization of the US of A.

I can't understand those who say Biden&Co, sponsored by global finance, is the lesser evil. It's not even close.

Is Trump going to prevail? Who knows. At this point, this is, obviously, a naked power struggle. Fight with no rules. To win, he would not only have to get more votes in the right places, but significantly more votes. To compensate for the advantage of the establishment apparatus.

Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Oct 19 2020 20:04 utc | 63

Here's a question for "lesser evil" and/or Bernie supporters to consider:

If you vote for Biden and he wins - do you really think there is any possibility that a progressive will head the Democrat party Presidential ticket in your lifetime?

From my view: if even Innocuous Joe fails and a second Surprise! election occurs - there could be an opening to change the Democrat party.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 19 2020 20:09 utc | 64

Gruff, using your standard, Obama didn't start any wars either.

Obama shot at the Libyans but the Libyans did not shoot back, ZERO U.S. / NATO casualties == NO WAR in your book.

Trump bombed Iraq's airport killing Soleimani and Iraqi militia, and Iran replied with a salvo.
Trump bombed Syria twice but Syria was too timid to respond.
Trump has bombed Iraqi militia in Iraq starting a new conflict on his own and the Militia have killed two U.S. serviceman and a U.S. military contractor.

So I'm trying to divine what possible standard you have to declare that Obama started wars while Trump did not.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Oct 19 2020 20:09 utc | 65

Didn't all those BLM rallies help spread COVID too? How is that Trump's fault?

Posted by: Bruce | Oct 19 2020 20:15 utc | 66

Feral Finster @Oct19 20:04 #62

Trump won in 2016 because he was seen by enough people in WI, MI and PA as an outsider with new ideas ...

No. Trump won because Hillary threw the election. SHE KNEW that those states would decide the election but chose not to campaign in those states in the last weeks of the election.

She also alienated key voter groups - something no seasoned campaigner would do:

  • Progressives

    She gave a speech to Goldman Sacks in the run-up to the election for which she was paid $750,000; but wouldn't agree to a $15 minimum wage for the working poor;

    She colluded with DNC against Sanders then brought Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her campaign.

  • Blacks

    She was cold as ice to Black Lives Matter activists and generally did nothing to reach out to the black community. As a result, many black voters stayed home.

  • Poor Whites

    She called them "deplorables" - something that energized the Trump base.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 20:16 utc | 67

Mao Cheng Ji @Oct19 20:04 #64

I can't understand those who say Biden&Co, sponsored by global finance, is the lesser evil.

They are both evil and they both work for the same gangster class.

The Empire is a bi-partisan project.

... this is, obviously, a naked power struggle.

You've been duped. It's kayfabe. Mock combat. The Democratic establishment - including Sanders, Biden, and Pelosi - are throwing the race just as Hillary threw it in 2016. Trump is the Deep State pick and his job isn't done.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 20:24 utc | 68

i am waiting for the definitive post from circe, lol...

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2020 20:24 utc | 69

Congratulations to Bolivia. May their example lead other neighboring countries to stand up for their people instead of being compliant slaves to empire.

There are a couple of comments upthread that posit that Biden is the rep for global finance and Trump is the rep of nationalists. At one point I thought that what we are seeing was a clash of financial elite but no longer. And if I did see it that way I would put Trump as the rep of the globalists because of his Occupied Palestine support.

Now I see the clash of US politics as a set up for a global culling of the lower tier rich along with a consolidation of global power/control. I see Brexit as the same sort of clash between the UK/City of London folk and the EU types that want visibility of City of London stuff.

If Trump wins it will be a squeaker and if Biden wins it might be a blow out but I hope not.....I don't want either to have a mandate or think they have one.

The US shit show continues but the rest of the world like Bolivia are moving on which is good to see.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 19 2020 20:28 utc | 70

Bolivia's people are impressive in their courage, patience and powerful grassroots organizing work. They are role models for the rest of us in smartphone land-- old fashioned, taking back the streets and the plazas, absorbing the blows, murders, slurs, threats and they never backed down. Watch them. They will pick up where they were a year ago and re-activate the public sector. Lithium will be in the mainstream press soon and the "cool people" in the West aren't going to be happy with Bolivia.
Regarding advice to consult with Venezuela and likely others, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, etc. I agree. It appeared to be a weakness along with Evo's extended leadership but I also think that kind of advice will be best given and received among those countries who have the "street cred" as opposed to me and others among us in the collapsing imperial homelands as we lurch from one crisis to another on all levels... international, national, state, also, our own personal collapses along with family and friends, many of whom we are at odds with.
Watch for:
Evo's role in the government; remember, he won the election and more details exposing the coup will come out;
OAS; their stock will tank as leader Almagro's role in the coup will be revealed and become more difficult to hide along with his fascist friends in Latin America and his "friends" in Washington. Names will be named.
Brazil and Argentina; both countries will have a higher profile in how they interacted with/ participated in Bolivia's government-- Brazil and Bolsonaro are up to their eyeballs in the fascist cliques centered in the Santa Cruz region of Bolivia which borders Brazil. The Argentines in power are very supportive of the MAS as well as AMLO's Mexico.
Finally, watch for the re-emergence of ALBA (Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América) the left's alliance of Latin American countries whose purpose is to develop a belt and road network excluding imperial powers. Bottom line, the left will likely be emerging this coming year in Latin America.

Posted by: migueljose | Oct 19 2020 20:28 utc | 71

@Christian J. Chuba #66
You leave out Yemen and Syria. Ukraine also occurred on Obama's watch.
And Obama was the first to extrajudicially kill an American citizen abroad.
Hardly the record of a peacemaker.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 19 2020 20:29 utc | 72

Regarding the U.S. election, I wrote in Gabbard.

Posted by: migueljose | Oct 19 2020 20:29 utc | 73

poor elon. i hope he and his canadian street urchin baby mama have enough to get by. wouldn't want little ^%$&$%&%7!# to go hungry after all.

the second you bring up che around basic folks (and especially the huge population of anti-castro lunatics in florida) they usually default to "he was a murderer!!!!" maybe - but even if we accept that term it omits the fact that many (or most) of those killed had it coming and, if allowed to live there, would have gone straight back to counter-revolutionary hijinks. exile is a decent option but it's not like they stop acting like pricks when they hit miami.

anyone who has even casually followed events in south/central america knows the right wing down there can't be reasoned with as human beings. that is great if you're a banana company, mcdonald's or want some nuns raped and killed but if you want a functioning society the occasional euthanasia could be necessary. again, i'd put them in rafts and let them do some refugee LARPing before the coast guard scoops them up and hands them cocoa. anything harsher would just convert them to martyrs.

and as always, agreed that a bumbling, hated trump is better than a semi-popular biden riding a long wave of unaccountability and acting on a "mandate".

Posted by: the pair | Oct 19 2020 20:42 utc | 74

@ migueljose | Oct 19 2020 20:28 utc | 72.. thanks again for your previous posts on the topic of bolivia.. it seems like the sources you were relying on were good sources!

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2020 20:45 utc | 75

Biden's leads in MI, PA, and WI are between 6.5 and 8 percent. Trump is very unlikely to win any of them let alone repeat his 2016 sweep. Biden hasn't ignored those states the way Clinton did. He is focusing his money on them and outspending Trump by a wide margin. Trump has thrown in the towel. He has chosen not to use any of his own funds. That is because he knows that the game is over for him.

Nate Silver, who predicted 99 out of 100 state results accurately in '08 through '12 gives Trump a 12 percent chance of winning the electoral college vote and 4 percent chance of winning the popular vote. The passion of Trump's supporters at rallies is a poor indicator of what the election results will be. I'm surprised that so many here are anticipating a Trump win.

Posted by: David | Oct 19 2020 20:50 utc | 76

just watched Trump in Arizona. what a spectacle. incredible bullshitter he is. My favorite is that we now have a hydrosonic missile.

the ruskies and the red chinese must be quaking in their boots.

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 19 2020 20:52 utc | 77

Posted by: Red Ryder | Oct 19 2020 16:55 utc | 9

I'm sorry but is this satire?

Trump will be most concerned with carving his name into history with Infrastructure, a new greener electrical grid, rebuilding urban centers, creating a health system that is better and cheaper and all can access, and getting left wing ideology out of the educational system.

Trump leading an infrastructure program, greener electrical grid and rebuilding urban centers? Laughable. C'mon you are joking, right?

On the infrastructure side of things, he made that promise in 2016 and nothing materialized. This time around he could very well be facing a Democrat House and Senate and unlikely to get any of his plans enacted. Then there is the fact that not even the Koch-funded and created Cato Institute is behind him. Instead, I see ramped up hostilities and potentially hot war (perhaps by proxy as is the not-so-new normal) with Iran and a massive increase in military infrastructure spending (gleefully green lighted by the Congress no matter who controls it) as well as skirmishes, both "diplomatic" (the US is not agreement capable) and military in and around China's (claimed) territorial waters and the South China Sea. We still haven't left Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan despite the recent threats to close the embassy in the "Green Zone" and many are thinking (apologies for the weasel words) that Israel will soon go to war with its neighbors, surely drawing Iranian proxies and assets in. And furthermore all of THAT says nothing about the obstructionary investigations and impeachment attempts that will dog his second lame duck term as much or more than they did in the first.

Trump's not going to do anything about medicine except further privatize it and his education policy consists, I shit you not, of increasing "patriotic education" in public schools and relaxing the regulations even more on private, for-profit charter schools.

As to b's larger points and his prediction, I will go out on a not-so-long limb here and disagree. We left the United States just after the 2016 election, and still have relatives from California to Texas to Ohio/Pennsylvania/West Virginia/Maryland - and the so-called silent majority this time will be Biden voters. Last time I predicted a Trump electoral college win based on the silent majority I saw in large part via my social media connections including extended family and in-laws. The polling saying Hillary was a slam dunk didn't match at all what I was seeing with my own eyes and hearing with my ears.

There was no passion about Hillary Clinton from most of the left (I didn't vote for her) - just a subset of centrist females and upper crust liberals - and Trump was campaigning hard, including co-opting the populist sentiment and language of the Bernard Sanders campaign to hit at her from the left. This time around, I'm seeing a lot of Trump fatigue and I'm hearing that there are now plenty of Biden/Harris yard signs out in places where Trump dominated last time. (To those who are not in the United States, it is a common practice to stick 2-3 foot metal and paper signs into one's front lawn.) COVID-19 or not, Trump fatigue is real and if Biden can make it through the first week of November without falling apart in a shambling, dementia-addled public melt-down, I think he's going to beat Trump in both the popular vote and the electoral college. Just my hunch - I didn't end up casting a ballot.

There are also likely to be a ton of contested results and court cases to come of it if the vote is really close. That's where you start getting into the civil war scenarios and return of the Brooks Brothers Riots, but this time armed with AR-15s and much more aggressive. I found an interesting leftist/anarchist piece on the matter over at crimethinc (which has been blackballed and banned by FB, Twitter and IG) here. He references a long piece in the Atlantic as well as some other decently written articles within it.

All of that having been said, I do not endorse or approve of Joe Biden or Kopmala Harris, so please don't read this comment as such. We'll see the Russia baiting, military interventions, color revolutions/coups and continued abuse of government surveillance (among other) powers when and if Biden does win. There will be a softening of the stances with Iran, Venezuela and China, but probably nothing substantive (again, not agreement capable). Also, to think that Biden/Harris would get behind any real "defund the police" movement with actual policies is ridiculous. We all know both of their "tough on crime" records. That would have to come from the state/local levels or the Congress, and I honestly could see Biden vetoing anything along those lines. Most of the people I know, including some who voted Trump last time around, what they really want is a return to the fake normalcy of the Obama years, even if that means electing a proven war monger, corporation/bank owned puppet like Sleepy Uncle Joe.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Oct 19 2020 21:03 utc | 78

Yes, I have read in various places about how the Republicans have this massive ground game and the Democrats are asleep at the wheel, but I think these stories ignore something else that is going on, apparently under the radar:

I can tell you that one thing most observers are apparently not taking into account when comparing Rs' and Ds' canvassing is that the Ds are mounting massive phone banking efforts such as I've never seen before. I have at least two close personal friends here in Texas who have already made thousands of phone calls and plan to make thousands more on behalf of Ds. If you compare the two parties' different approaches, they make total sense, since as we know the Ds take the pandemic more seriously and so prefer to do their voter outreach by phone.

I am also personally aware of many progressive-leaning faith-based and other grassroots organizations who are doing massive get-out-the-vote drives. Most of them legally can't advise people about who to vote for, but the attempt to get more people to vote is a sign that they are implicitly trying to stop Republicans.

All of these things, while I know they've happened in the past, are at an unprecedentedly massive scale this year. And the people involved are working feverishly. This appears to be completely unnoticed in the media, so I wonder what kind of surprises might be in store.

Now, this is just my personal observation, and my bias is from the point of view of someone who always goes Green (already early voted this year in person). That of course means that my group of friends and acquaintances tend to skew left, or at least, not R (hard for me to consider Ds as actually left, sorry guys). I must say, however, that I see very little evidence of Rs' much-reported ground game here. No one has knocked at my door, with or without a mask. Maybe they know that I'm not one of them, but shouldn't they at least ask everyone for their vote? My D friends are calling everybody and patiently waiting to harvest that extra one or two voters from among the mass of calls that either don't answer or just hang up. Perhaps Republicans in Texas just think they have the state in the bag and aren't putting in the effort here.

Posted by: Howard | Oct 19 2020 21:04 utc | 79

@Jackrabbit: for someone who "threw" the election, HRC sure did kick up a screeching fuss afterwards. In fact, the fuss has never stopped.

A much simpler explanation - HRC didn't bother to campaign with the icky flyover people because she assumed that the election would be a coronation. After all, MI, WI and PA had consistently voted Team D in presidential elections for at least a generation, why would 2016 be any different?

Posted by: Feral Finster | Oct 19 2020 21:16 utc | 80

Trump didn't win the vote in 2016 and is less likely to win the vote this year. It is entirely possible black turnout will decline even more than in 2016 because years of explaining how white is racism may have the desired effect. And Obama's hard right turn will not bring his black followers out for a woman, no more Harris than Clinton. Maybe. Trump's only real hope is the bias in the Electoral College, further rightward shift by Latinx voters, increased black abstention and fraud backed by force (aka violence, threats of violence and fears of violence.) The rest is Trumpery.

But a note on one Abrahms. As an alleged expert on foreign policy Abrahms knows perfectly well the ex-mayor of South isn't a significant foreign policy player. The only reason for mentioning him is to queerbait Trump opponents. With bias like that looking for an objective assessment of anything from him is a risky business indeed.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 19 2020 21:19 utc | 81

What's funny is how many Yankee doodle dumb f*cks actually think the US (s)elections change policy.

Nothing has changed under Trump but the rhetoric just like nothing has changed over the last 40 years(at least) under any of these corporate fascist cult members.

The US is not a democratic republic and never really was. Anyone that actually believes Trump is going to change anything is the victim of magical thinking. He's merely trying to convert himself from being the bribe maker to one of the bribe takers. Just read the book he had written for his oversized ego.

US foreign and economic policy is and always has been decided by the elite themselves or as of late via their heavily funded (get paid what to)think tanks. They have useful idiots in the press, academia, and the MIC that decide which country to loot and pillage in order to steal the natural resources to exploit us with. You're only voting for which actor will lie to you about policy while making themselves, their friends and family and fellow cult members richer and more powerful.

Vote real hard this time and watch as nothing changes as far as policy goals are concerned and watch the cult members of either party pretend that their insignificant tactical changes equate to actual policy change.

Stay safe and sane, and don't let these criminal assholes trick you into thinking they care about your well being. They only care about their own power, just like the two dickheads pretending to run for president. Both of which would be in prison or homeless by now if not for their connections and or parents money.

Posted by: dave | Oct 19 2020 21:21 utc | 82

@ steven t johnson | Oct 19 2020 21:19 utc | 82... steven, i have a hard time with those who want to complain about the design which includes the electoral college and what it means... have people been complaining about this for the past 50 years or more, or is this just a new thing that got sprung on usa democracy recently?? i don't live in the usa, so i am asking sincerely.... if the system is or was broken for as long as it has been, why all this angst over a broken set up?? i haven't heard about either the red or blue party wanting to change any of this... did i miss this?? you have been complaining about this ever since trump won the last election... what are you or the people of the usa going to do to change it?? or will it be forgotten when the right colour gets elected? sure trump is corrupt.. of that i have no doubt! but both parties are in strong competition for which one is more corrupt is what it looks like to me...

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2020 21:28 utc | 83

james@84 asks about complaints about the electoral college. Complaints about the electoral college began in the second election, in 1792, about how the electors should vote as their states voted, not as they wished. The first constitutional crisis was in the election of 1800, which resulted in the passage of the 12th amendment. The electoral college was almost certainly not abolished then precisely because it gave Jefferson, the winner, a majority by overrepresenting the South. People complained that Jefferson was the Negro president because slaves were added, at 3/5 a man, to the supposed populations determining the congressional and electoral college representation. The electoral college gave John Quincy Adams the presidency and the popular vote winner (more or less,) Andrew Jackson, raved like a maniac for the entire term, as did his followers. There was another constitutional crisis in 1876, complete with threats of civil war resuming. It is strictly a modern thing for a Gore to supinely give up. Bush thought he might lose the electoral college and was preparing a fallback campaign to reject this as illegitimate, according to reports. And it is reportedly Obama who told Clinton to give up, as in, he'd fight her on it. Accepting the electoral college is a sure sign of reactionary politics, no matter how officially left. Every single person who claims that it's the Constitution and that's all there is to say, is a damned liar, or a gullible fool repeating damned lies.

The system is nearly impossible to change, which is not an accident.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 19 2020 21:42 utc | 84

Congratulations to the Bolivian people....

Hasta la victoria, siempre!

Now it´s time for the rest of Latin America...and then it will be for Congo and the whole Africa...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Oct 19 2020 21:57 utc | 85

On Trump's war actions relative to Obama, I find myself leaning more toward William Gruff's comments @33, 49, 58.

@14 Passer by, I can agree that Trump has been more aggressive in rhetoric and in putting on a great show of sound and fury.

And I can agree that his dangerous rhetoric and brinksmanship puts the world at greater risk of nuclear catastrophe.

But in terms of actual physical damage, societies destroyed, and lives lost or ruined, my impression is that Trump has perhaps done a lot less harm than Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama.

Under Obama:

- US/NATO completely destroyed Libya, the most developed, progressive/socialist country in Africa
- Turned it into a failed state complete with AQ, black slave markets, and years of war and chaos
- Black lives previously mattered in Libya under Gaddafi who was also going to help all of Africa
- Obama made sure that that noble goal didn't happen - guess black lives outside the US don't matter much to him
- How many years or decades did that set Africa as a continent back? How many lives did that affect?
- Got weapons, AQ extremists, and violence flowing from Libya to Iraq/Syria/Mali/Africa
- Made sure that ISIS metastasized with training, funding, arming, and selective inattention
- Limited or no bombing of ISIS other than to push them toward Damascus
- Bombing of Syrian forces that tried to fight ISIS
- Largely destroyed another stable, secular country, Syria - brown lives outside the US didn't matter much to him
- Created the largest flow of refugees since WWII
- Just how many black lives, brown lives, women, children were lost by that, including in the Mediterranean?
- Overthrew the elected government in Honduras - brown lives outside the US didn't matter much to him
- Overthrew the elected government in the Ukraine in 2014 with neo-Nazi partners
- Poured weapons into and encouraged war in the Ukraine - how many died?
- Bombed the highest number of countries of any US presidency in history (7)

Under Trump:

- Made lots of aggressive/despicable rhetoric about North Korea, but then actually talked and met with them
- Dropped the "Mother of all Bombs" in Afghanistan, but in a remote location - how many people did that kill?
- There have been increasing civilian casualties in Afghanistan - but how many more than under Obama?
- Afghanistan peace talks have been happening under Trump, for what it's worth
- Made a show of airstrikes in Syria, but provided notifications - how many people did those kill?
- Apparently stopped the US funding of regime change proxy forces in Syria in 2017?
- ISIS lost almost all its territory (thanks to Syria's allies, Iran, Russia, etc.) under Trump
- Syria regained ground and stability, fewer people dying and suffering there under Trump than under Obama
- Possibly less fighting and killing in the Ukraine than under Obama
- Assassination attempts against Maduro did take place
- Repeatedly tried to overthrow Maduro via Guaido - seemed a bit of a joke
- American mercenaries were caught red-handed in Venezuela - seemed a bit of a joke
- Did assassinate the highly-regarded Iranian general/diplomat Soleimani and others around him
- Did overthrow Evo Morales in Bolivia, but it sounds like that may now be getting undone?
- Colour revolution attempts in Hong Kong, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, etc.
- Did impose brutal sanctions on Venezuela, Syria, Iran - but how many more have died as a result?
- Have there been more or fewer people dying in Yemen under Trump than under Obama? Or comparable?

I could be wrong, but my impression is that far fewer black lives, brown lives, white lives, women, children have been killed or ruined under Trump's reprehensible rhetoric than under Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama's noble-sounding smooth talking.

Posted by: Canadian Cents | Oct 19 2020 22:11 utc | 86

Congrats to MAS I guess.

Posted by: Smith | Oct 19 2020 22:16 utc | 87

‘Voter enthusiasm”, “better ground game”................bread and circus.

Electoral college vote is what wins elections in the US, not the sham called the popular vote. The only quasi democracy exercised is among the delegates chosen by governors of each state, and they get their marching order from corporate America.

Maybe that’s why Biden doesn’t care much. It’s already decided. Anyway, we are screwed either way.

Posted by: Alpi | Oct 19 2020 22:27 utc | 88

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2020 21:28 utc | 84

If I may, I think that the EC really became a hot button issue because other than one of George W. Bush's terms (his first, I believe), the last time a Republican was elected that actually won the popular vote AND EC was Ronald Reagan (maybe not even both terms). I could be wrong on this as I don't follow the EC conversation so closely from here in Europe, but basically Dems are pissed that they always seem to win the popular vote for President, but it ends up being a Republican more than half the time by way of the EC vote, at least dating back to some point in the 60s or 70s. Maybe someone else can help clear up my response.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Oct 19 2020 22:39 utc | 89

To William Gruff's point that Trump hasn't started any "new wars" - I agree with the rabbit's response and, because I'm a broken record on the topic, I can virtually guarantee that Trump will start a hot war on Iran once he's safely re-elected. I've been predicting that for a long time now, and with the Israelis suddenly signing (meaningless?) peace deals with the Gulf monarchies, the "maximum pressure" campaign now reaching a point where it's hard to imagine any possible NEW options other than a straight naval blockade, the shackles will be off and Trump will be free to turn against his (smaller and often
more disingenuous than advertised "anti-war" base) and hit Iran really hard. Plus the Saudis sure have bought a lot of weapons systems from the U.S. in the past 3+ years. They're going to want to use their new toys.

The other thing is, U.S. presidents don't have to start "new wars" anymore, really. Obama didn't start any wars the likes of what George W. Bush and Dick(head) Cheney did. He and his fellow Atlantacists merely interceded into brewing conflagrations and helped them along throwing fuel on the fire, including Libya and Syria - Ukraine was too close to Russia for them to risk anything military. The French handled most of the Libyan destruction, IIRC, and U.S. proxy head-choppers did most of the destroying in Syria. Trump hasn't really been that much better than Obama when you look at it that way. In fact, he's revved up the drone assassination program to record levels (as of 2019 anyway, nobody talks about it anymore) and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress gifted him with the largest military budget of all time.

But back to my original point, I think the right way to phrase it is Trump hasn't started any new hot wars......YET. Give him another term and that will change.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Oct 19 2020 22:52 utc | 90

I assess Mr.Trump has left the most important and election-winning move too late.

Fire Mr. Pompeo ('cover' of non-release of emails has already been arranged.)

Replace him with a well-liked, sensible, peace-maker from the military, who has long experience in the Foreign Relations committee and in the military itself.

She would then serve a 4 year apprenticeship (subject to mutually agreed 'red lines' for continued occupancy of the post).

It would be acknowledged that while part of the administration, she would work in a bipartisan way.

At the end of Mr Trumps term, she will be elected President.

The first female President.

Mr. Trumps legacy.


Loki could do it.

but, TOO LATE!

Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 19 2020 22:58 utc | 91

as far as I am concerned Donald Trump has been the absolute worst president ever on two historic and existential issues:

1. nuclear weapons/nuclear war/arms control
2. global warming/climate catastrophe

the human race is absolutely hurtling itself toward extinction, and the f**king Climate Apocalypse high-speed train engine is pretty close to going off the cliff as far as I am concerned. To be brutally frank, the ecological and Planetary damage from either of these two existential crises coming to complete fruition are a thousand million times more damaging that any right-wing supreme court appointment or attempted foreign coup d'etats etc etc (all of which are hateful... and not that these things are insignificant, either, for they are not and should be reisted).

Trump and his right-wing ideologues in the ruling class are climate catastrophe deniers even as tens of millions die or are displaced worldwide from the droughts, storms, deluges, hurricanes, typhoons - and that's not even to mention the already catastrophic loss of species and animal/plant life and their individual numbers... And the continued poisoning of the landscape, waterways and oceans, from China and Siberia to the USA and the Amazon. And we are just at the historical start of these things.

Little of this has been on the mainstream media radar the last few decades except for the most superficial and cursory notices. We all know the economic, political and psychological reasons why too.

Imagine if you would if Maddow alone had spent 1/2 of the time she wasted on russiagate lies and hype, instead focusing on and railing about pollution, species decimation, habitat loss, rising oceans and a hundred other related climate apocalypse issues! And wee all know why she didn't do that, too.

sorry to go on, but these existential issues that are being essentially ignored by both american political parties and the capitalist Ruling Elites of the world make for a very sorry spectacle in the final years/decades of the human race.

Posted by: michaelj72 | Oct 19 2020 23:18 utc | 92

Feral Finster @Oct19 21:16 #81

A much simpler explanation - HRC didn't bother to campaign with the icky flyover people because she assumed that the election would be a coronation.

Michael Bloomberg announced in early 2016 that he was thinking of enter the race because the populists (Sanders and Trump) were each unacceptable as President. Many in the establishment felt the same way.

Hillary was expected to do everything she could to defeat them both. So why did do things that alienated key voting groups?

Trump had trounced all the seasoned Republican contenders with his populist message. It is nonsense to suggest that she thought the race would be a coronation.

After all, MI, WI and PA had consistently voted Team D in presidential elections for at least a generation, why would 2016 be any different?

Sorry but we know that Hillary knew that the election was close in those states.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2020 23:22 utc | 93

I disagree that Trump or Biden will start a hot war on Iran and actually on any other country. Those days are done. Finito.

Posted by: arby | Oct 19 2020 23:24 utc | 94

Put this on previous board, should have been here.

"Bolivia has the world's largest known reserves of lithium, which is set to become one of the world’s most important natural resources as manufacturers seek it out for use in batteries for electric cars, computers, and industrial equipment.

The US-backed coup in November came just as Bolivia was beginning to industrialize the processing of value-added final products, under the nationalized company, YLB. "

The Fight To Save Bolivia’s Lithium

Viva Bolivia, but I'll feel better when the new MAS leader takes power. This coup government plays very nasty.

Posted by: arby | Oct 19 2020 23:29 utc | 95

karlof1 | Oct 19 2020 19:54 utc | 60

Precisely. And removed the typo, OMO, altogether in 218.

Data held within a med family in direct line all the way back to Ehrlich staff.

Bec of u appears 1st time on inet. Thanks your perceptions.

Posted by: chu teh | Oct 19 2020 23:34 utc | 96

Good news from Bolivia.

regarding US Election... I am returning from a long overdue vacation to the outer banks. The difference in campaign effort vs a non-competitive state like NY is stark.

My $0.02 impression is that people may be sick of talking about it, and are perfectly able to avoid it out of politeness, but if you bring up the subject, I've yet to encounter apathy. The media barrage ensures this of course.

I think you're going to see sky high turnout among both black and white non-college-educated voters who would normally be under 50% probability.

I think the Biden campaign worked very hard to get black churches to mobilize harder than normal. One visible result of this are some good ads on the hip hop stations with a preacher going to bat for Biden. With Hillary, it's not that they weren't on board with her campaign, its just that they thought that election was a done deal so they didn't do the full court press like now.

The Trump campaign meanwhile took the yard sign game to a new level with 3x6's and 4x8's (and even more in PA), and businesses like construction /plumbing /electrical supply shops serving as anchors. They figure their clientele will appreciate it, and soon it becomes a thing their competitors have to do or else customers will wonder why they don't have one... a powerful social dynamic. The reverse will happen for Biden in other ways, but the level of visibility in this case is a novelty.

Posted by: ptb | Oct 19 2020 23:44 utc | 97

Trump is definitely a warmonger. It's just that he doesn't want to fight a middle eastern war. There is some high probability that the whole pandemic is a bio attack against China, aiming to cripple its economy and its international reputation, except it ended up backfiring.

Posted by: W | Oct 19 2020 23:56 utc | 98

from all the reports I've read, Trump is far ahead in early voting. And Dems were supposed to be the early voting crowd. Biden will be wiped off the map.

Posted by: Lee Sonne | Oct 19 2020 23:56 utc | 99

b, yet again, since you don't seem to get it.

... The President and the federal government are mostly powerless to impose lockdowns or to police the streets. Biden, Obama, even Franklin Roosevelt could not have done more than Trump.
Posted by: bob sykes | Oct 19 2020 19:23 utc | 51

You mean he didn't even have needed to stage himself as US master of ceremony in the White House press circus as superior promoter of how best to deal with the flue? ... the Chinese globalist hoax?

Posted by: Vig | Oct 19 2020 23:58 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.