Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 31, 2020

What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?

Pepe Escobar is as pessimistic about a Harris (Biden) administration as I am. The incoming foreign policy team would be the return of the blob that waged seven wars during the Obama/Biden administration:

Taking a cue from [the Transition Integrity Project], let’s game a Dem return to the White House – with the prospect of a President Kamala taking over sooner rather than later. That means, essentially, The Return of the Blob.

President Trump calls it “the swamp”. Former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes – a mediocre hack – at least coined the funkier “Blob”, applied to the incestuous Washington, DC foreign policy gang, think tanks, academia, newspapers (from the Washington Post to the New York Times), and that unofficial Bible, Foreign Affairs magazine.

A Dem presidency, right away, will need to confront the implications of two wars: Cold War 2.0 against China, and the interminable, trillion-dollar GWOT (Global War on Terror), renamed OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) by the Obama-Biden administration.

The Democratic White House team Escobar describes (Clinton, Blinken, Rice, Flournoy) would be an assembly of well known war mongers who all argue for hawkish policies. The main 'enemies', Russia and China, would be the same as under Trump. Syria, Venezuela, Iran and others would stay on the U.S. target list. U.S. foreign policy would thereby hardly change from Trump's version but would probably be handled with more deadly competence.

But Escobar sees two potential positive developments:

In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden’s only foreign policy achievement, and re-starting nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of Russia, not a new all-out Cold War, even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record, that Russia is the “biggest threat” to the US.

I believe that Harris (Biden) will disappoint on both of those issues. The neoconservatives have already infested the Harris (Biden) camp. They will make sure that JCPOA does not come back:

Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by “Jewish Americans for Biden”, and moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump’s character posing a danger to democracy. But both neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East and reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won’t necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support Israel and believe in American military intervention.

Eric Edelman, a former diplomat and adviser to Dick Cheney, said Trump’s peace plan has fostered an open political divide in the U.S. over Israel, ...

Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic, echoed the fear that Israel is being politicized. ...
...
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama’s Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish on Iran.
...
“There will be voices” in the Biden administration that seek a return to the Iran deal, but the clock has been running for four years, and we’re in a different place, he said. And “it will be hard [for Biden] not to use the leverage that the sanctions provide in part because Iran is not abiding by a lot of the limits of the nuclear agreement… They’re about three, maybe four months away from having enough fissile material to actually develop a nuclear weapon.”

For lifting the sanctions against Iran the Harris (Biden) administration will demand much more than Iran's return to the limits of the JCPOA. Iran will reject all new demands, be they about restricting its missile force or limiting its support for Syria. The conflict will thereby continue to fester.

The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's offer to unconditionally prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want more concessions from Russia than that country is willing to give. Currently it is Russia that has the upper hand in strategic weapons with already deployed hypersonic missiles and other new platforms. The U.S. will want to fill the new 'missile gap' and the military-industrial complex stands ready to profit from that. The New-START prolongation will eventually run out and I do not see the U.S. agreeing to new terms while Russia has a technological superiority.

Domestic policies under a democratic president will likewise see no substantial difference. As Krystal Ball remarked, here summarized from a Rolling Stone podcast:

But even with a Biden win, Ball doesn’t think it will mean much for policy.

“My prediction for the Biden era is that very little actually happens,” says Ball. “Democrats are very good at feigning impotence. We saw this in the SCOTUS hearings as well. They’re very good for coming up with reasons why, ‘oh those mean Republicans, like we want to do better healthcare and we want left wages, but oh gosh, Mitch McConnell, he’s so wiley, we can’t get it done.'”

'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real change never came. The Harris (Biden) administration must be seen in similar light.

I therefore agree with the sentiment with which Escobar closes his piece:

In a nutshell, Biden-Harris would mean The Return of the Blob with a vengeance. Biden-Harris would be Obama-Biden 3.0. Remember those seven wars. Remember the surges. Remember the kill lists. Remember Libya. Remember Syria. Remember “soft coup” Brazil. Remember Maidan. You have all been warned.

Posted by b on October 31, 2020 at 16:45 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

I have been trying to set the expectations for my deluded Democratic, pro-tech industry, pro-security state friends and colleagues who think they are forward-thinking progressives but actually just hate Trump as emblematic of non-college educated blue collar types they prefer not to associate with. Biden himself said it, "Nothing will change," and Obama deported many more people in his first term than Trump has to pick but one issue. There will be no M4A, little change in foreign policy, no major stimulus for workers, etc. But since the face in the White House will have changed, they will convince themselves that America has changed and it was all thanks to them...

One major change I expect to see is that BLM protests will fade into the background if Harris/Biden is elected. Without the need to pressure an administration the elites want to get rid of, there won't be the funding and energy to sustain it. But America will continue on the same downward trajectory and the same divisions will still exist with no remediation in sight.

Posted by: worldblee | Oct 31 2020 17:02 utc | 1

Great and accurate summary! Thank you.

Given our future circumstance I've been pondering bumper stickers that will help me get pulled over by the Stasi. Two come to mind immediately:

Wars R US! Biden 2020!
and from a photo on some recent web page

Defund the Elite!

Posted by: Michael | Oct 31 2020 17:18 utc | 2

Really, so what? You have a choice between chaotic anarchic corruption, and organised professional corruption. Is it not better to have the calm, predictable, version - at least you know what you're getting. In any case I am not sure Biden would be able to go back to launching new wars so easily. The US gives the impression of being over-stretched as it is.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:25 utc | 3

It seems clear that Biden will win. This means that the possibility of a serious military confrontation with Russia is more likely than it would be with a Trump win. In any Biden cabinet Michelle Flournoy will have a major voice. She would have likely become Hillary's Secretary of Defense. In August of 2016 Flournoy wrote a major foreign policy article advocating a 'no fly' zone over Syria. That would have meant that the US military would have been obliged to prevent the Russia airforce from operating in Syrian skies (even though, the Syrian government had invited the Russians to be there). No one really knows if Flournoy would have been given authority to carry out such insanity had Hillary won, but the consequences of such insane policy are easy to imagine.

But without much doubt, a Biden administration will have Susan Rice and Michelle Flournoy in very high policy positions. Given that Biden is rapidly descending into dementia and Kamala Harris seems utterly clueless, US government foreign policy will very likely be led by a Rice/Flournoy collaboration in the coming years. Of course, China has become a much bigger player in the last four years. Maybe those fools around Biden will be distracted by China and they avoid war with with Russia. In either case it looks like very dangerous times ahead.

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 31 2020 17:25 utc | 4

Trump was always for me about controlled demolition of the empire.

Putin will not tolerate another ramping up of hostilities in the MENA.

I believe, just as in 2016, open military confrontation with Russia hangs in the balance.

It is believed here and elsewhere that Russia and China are working hand in hand and lockstep to thwart the empire.

They may be trade allies but they are not bed fellows.

Russia will always do what is in its own interest and will be beyond reproach from China come a last-minute attempt for it to talk down hostilities btw Ru and U.S.A.

I hope those peddling the narrative that all is theater and a mere globalist game to keep the peons entertained are correct.

But I fear the stupidity and egoism of man far more than I do their love of money and life of luxury.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 31 2020 17:25 utc | 5

The JCPOA's "snap back" provisions etc. prove that Obama never intended JCPOA as a long term agreement in the first place. The issue was always how long it would suit, not how long it would take for the US to. Nor is the US going to forego it's support for a colonial assault on the Middle East, aka Israel, any more than England will give up Gibraltar.

That said, there really is a policy debate between attacking Russia first or attacking China first or simultaneously attacking both. The thing is, the conflict will continue after any election. Since the Democratic Party isn't a programmatic party but a franchise operation of Outs, there will be zero unanimity within the Democratic Party and not even a clean sweep of the national government will resolve the dispute, which will be waged with exactly the same panic-mongering, paranoid cries of treason, barely subdued hysteria at the prospect of the lower races overtaking the God-given rights of the US government to exercise imperium (right to punish, particularly with death, originally) over humanity, and so on. The same ignorant vicious halfwits who were convinced Clinton Foundation was worse than the Comintern infiltrating innocent America made assholes of themselves. They'll just do it again over Biden, but with different made up excuses.

Domestically, there will be real differences, albeit some will still consider them entirely minor. There will be less emphasis on military officers masquerading as civilian officials; more emphasis on actually having competent officials who are even confirmed by the Senate; somewhat larger infrastructure investment; somewhat less deliberate destruction of government capacity to deliver services; slightly greater emphasis on keeping money valuable by limiting government spending, with smaller increases in military spending, slightly greater taxes, and only limited support to state governments going bankrupt, bankrupt unemployment and pension funds; a few restrictions on mass evictions; no separation of families in ICE prisons; open appeals to racism will cease. There will not however be any Medicare expansion, nor will there be a radically progressive federal income tax, not even a new bankruptcy law, nor will there be even political reforms like direct popular election of the president or even reform of the judiciary. There may be a minimum wage increase to $15 per hour.

One note: The idea that any president will honor any deal to step down or that a president can be forced down is refuted by history thus far. All theories that Biden is scheduled to be terminated are silly. Or worse, attempts to race bait Harris (note the ones who like to call her by her first name.) The influence exercised by Obama in getting Biden the nomination shows that if Biden is in any sense a puppet, he's Obama's puppet. Fixating on Harris instead is foolish even as some sort of amateur conspiracy mongering. No matter what Obama thinks, the inauguration will sever all puppet strings.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 31 2020 17:31 utc | 6

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 31 2020 17:25 utc | 4

Can't say I'm convinced by all these threats of wars. They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in Syria when they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to do, and required too vast a military investment. Situation remains true today. You'll find most of Biden's prospective wars fall in the same category.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:36 utc | 7

The US self-declared “progressives” are horribly dumb people, no matter their degrees and “intellectual” professions. Stupidity is the illness (weakness) of the societal immunity system. The Blob of the parasitic class is the pestilence that thrives on the immune weakness of the US society. Not happy with mine, then find a better metaphor.

I repeat myself from before, US presidents change, US policy (Mayhem Inc.) does not. Nether on Russia, Syria, Iran, Venezuela ..., nor on China. If Trump loses, I will miss only the potential duel at the OK Corral between Trump and the Blob/Swamp. If Trmp wins, I am buying popcorn.

Posted by: Kiza | Oct 31 2020 17:40 utc | 8

Just, oh my goodness to #6. What a turgid, contradiction filled ramble

Posted by: erik | Oct 31 2020 17:51 utc | 9

@Laguerre #7
I would argue the failure of a "no-fly" zone in Syria was more due to united UN (Russia and China) opposition plus the Russia airbase in Tartus rather than any policy changes in the US.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 17:51 utc | 10

More pearl-clutching for Trump.

It's everywhere. And matched by Democratic Party ineptitude, fake "resistance", and generally lax attitude (spurred by a false sense of security due to polling numbers that can't be relied upon).

That's why I'm predicting a Trump landslide - including winning the popular vote.

The Deep State wants a 'Glorious Leader' type that can lead the country against Russia and China.

God help us.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 31 2020 17:55 utc | 11

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 17:51 utc | 10

Not a policy change, more that the military will have advised against it, the same problem that has always prevented an attack on Iran.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:56 utc | 12

KB has it right the demodogs will have better PR but nothing will change. The only thing I hope they do is fully throw the u.s. govt behind stopping the virus and even that will be hard do to many stupid people.

Trumpster and the swamp all he did was change the cruel animals in it and biden will change it back to the other cruel animals that were there before.

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 31 2020 17:59 utc | 13

It is hard to tell what will change if the Democrats win because they have flip flopped on policies so many times that you don’t know what they really stand for.

Are they going to ban fracking or not?
Are they going to end the oil industry or not?
Are they going to pack the Supreme Court or not ?
Are they going to implement the Green New Deal or not ?
Are they going to encourage immigration or not ?
Are they going to tear down the Wall?
Are they going to defund the police or not?

Other than #OrangeManBad what do they actually stand for ?
Jonathan Pie lays it out quite nicely
https://youtu.be/IdnHfYbr1cQ

The one issue that is critical is that it is clear than Biden will not make it full term. His mental faculties are deteriorating rapidly. He might just make it over the goal post line but just barely.

Therefore the real question is what will Kamala Harris do?

Russia has a lead in strategic weapons that the US will not be able to catch up with. Hence the US emphasis on nuclear weapons to bridge the gap. Russia has successfully thwarted the empire on several occasions. How will the empire struck back ? (So as not to lose credibility with allies and vassals alike)

There are too many unknowns.

Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:00 utc | 14

Another look at what a Biden win may mean by Philip Giraldi.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/10/29/disappearing-america-progressives-want-a-revolution-not-just-change/

Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:06 utc | 15

They are going to reduce government subsidies for fracking
And encourage the oil industry's ongoing retooling to other energies
They are going to expand the SCOTUS to 13 seats in keeping with the number of Circuit Courts
They are going to implement environmental legislation and policies
They will hopefully try to adopt a comprehensive policy on immigration and naturalization
They will abandon The Wall project as pointless
They will review the role of the police in dealing with situations where a social worker or a psychologist (with police escort) might better be able to handle the situation

Kamala Harris will keep an active and high profile as she is being groomed to run in 2024


Posted by: Malchik Ralf | Oct 31 2020 18:08 utc | 16

I agree that trajectory in foreign policy will be the same. I think a Trump administration would tend to entrench into the bureaucracy the xenophobic nationalists. This is in contrast to the neoliberal nationalists that make up the Democrat side of the foreign policy clique. In practice the latter ends up carrying water for the neocons, so the difference from the global perspective, the perspective of those on whom the bombs fall, is academic.

Domestically, however, I don't think we can say there's no significant difference. At some point far down the road, there will be a more meaningful internal political struggle in the US. Talking about when the $$ printing power runs out, so several presidential cycles from now at the very earliest, maybe many decades away.

The out-groups targeted by xenophobic nationalism will shift by then - either black or hispanic people will necessarily be included into the Republican party, and the divide may be more a matter of religion or nationality than race, but the overall idea will be the same.

No matter the details, it would be better to go into that conflict without giving the right-wingers a big head start. I think we should admit that Trump does accelerate the process. Maybe readers outside the US take some pleasure in the chaos produced by this, but for anyone actually planning to live within the US, who also objects to unrestrained nationalism, there actually is a pretty high price to pay for peeling off the mask of phony benevolence off of the de-facto imperialist foreign policy.

Posted by: ptb | Oct 31 2020 18:20 utc | 17

‘b’ half the truth isn’t the truth, no doubt you’l get round to the other half. It’s conspicuous !
In these times focusing on what might happen if we get Biden, is biased.
What in your view might happen if we get trump ?
Given his track record.
Much more relevant I feel.

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 31 2020 18:29 utc | 19

@Malchik #16
Well, kid, I will guarantee that 2/3rds of what you say will happen with a Biden win, won't happen.
I am particularly struck by your assertion that "super predator" Biden and "Lock 'em up" Harris will do anything to rein in police misbehavior. That is pure fantasy.
As for fracking: the subsidies were primarily by banksters in the form of loans and have long since ended. Nobody believes fracking is going to be a profitable business for at least a decade.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:30 utc | 20

The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly going to lose the popular vote. Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.

In my opinion, it's time for the non far-right of the USA to start thinking seriously (specially if you're one of the twelve socialists in the country) in Third Party vote. Yes, you won't pick up the fruits immediately, but at least you're build up a legacy for the generations to come to try to change the landscape.

Now, of course, very little will change with Biden-Harris. But this has a good side, too: it shows the American Empire has clearly reached an exhaustion point, where the POTUS is impotent to the obstacle posed by China-Russia. Putin has already publicly stated he doesn't care who's next POTUS; China has already stated what the USA does or decides won't mean shit. Maybe the rising irrelevance of the POTUS is good in the greater scheme of things - or, at least, it gives us new, very precious, information about the core of the Empire.

Posted by: vk | Oct 31 2020 18:32 utc | 21

Is b really suggesting Trump is more peaceful than Biden?

The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is specious. They are all on Team Deep State, which serves the monied class.

And the pretense that the Deep State is divided or partisan is equally laughable.

Strange that so many smart people fall for the shell game behind the 'Illusion of Democracy'. Is it so difficult to see the reshuffling of deck chairs and entertaining diversions that pass for "US politics"?

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 31 2020 18:35 utc | 22

Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.

But seriously, things have been changing very rapidly all of my life, and accelerating as we go. I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either. They remain focussed on their depraved personal ambitions and demented interpersonal disputes. So no change in the midst of lots of change is what I expect, time to keep an eye out and consider ones options.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 31 2020 18:35 utc | 23

@14 Will they fund a task force to deliver a preliminary report on reparations?

Posted by: dh | Oct 31 2020 18:37 utc | 24

vk @ 21

By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.

Jesus but that is an ignorant comment. Michael Moore explained 4 years ago why Trump will win the election (2016)
https://youtu.be/vMm5HfxNXY4

Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:47 utc | 25

@vk #21
You said:

The only objection I have with supporting Trump's reelection from a non far-right viewpoint is that you would essentially be supporting an anti-democratic process: Trump is certainly going to lose the popular vote.

The United States has a Constitution and was designed as a Republic.
"Democracy" as in majoritarian rule was explicitly designed against by the Founding Fathers.
Thus your criticism is utterly irrelevant. Until the Electoral College system is changed by Constitutional Amendment, or the United States of America is overthrown by a revolution, all this talk about "majoritarian demos rule" is purely partisan nonsense.
Note also that the 48 states which are "first past the post" are all disenfranchising the minority views. I 100% guarantee that a European style ranked vote system would see far more minority votes be submitted than the present systems.

Deserving or not, Biden does represent the absolute majority of adult America. By supporting Trump, you're essentially speaking in the name of the interests of a small redneck aristocracy (of circa 77,000 in size, according to the 2016 election results) in the Rust Belt and Western Pennsylvania. You are supporting white supremacy those rednecks undoubtedly support - wanting you or not.
Wow, thanks for showing your "deplorables" views. Anyone against the "right" and "proper" Democrat sellouts to pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this view that galvanized the vote against HRC in 2016.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26

@JackRabbit #22
You said

The notion that Trump is fundamentally different than Biden or Hillary or Obama or Bush is specious.

That's not actually true.
Biden has 47 years of track record to rely on.
HRC, ditto.
Bush is umpteenth generation Bush in government (100 years plus).
Obama was groomed through Harvard, community organization and Senate position as a servant of the oligarchy.
Trump is a billionaire and 2nd generation wealthy, but he neither shares the views of the oligarch classes - his historical behavior is clear proof of that - nor is he predictable as the other 4 are.
If presented with a neocon view - all 4 of the above would 100% agree.
Trump? 85%.
That is a difference albeit absolutely not world changing.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:55 utc | 27

Pure BS.
Giving health care to 20 million poor Americans ain't nothing to sneeze at. Adding pre existing conditions save millions of lives. That's why the right despises Obama so much. How dare he give money to those free loaders!

lets show what the republicans have done for poor Americans besides taking more needex money from them and giving it to their rich buddies.
and No, Democrats cannot do anything if they don't control the Congress. They should have done it 2 years ago but since all they were doing was scream RUSSIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! at the top of their lungs,the people turned their backs on them.
Bullshit article.

Posted by: Hoyeru | Oct 31 2020 18:56 utc | 28


The Democrats are not going to end fracking. It is doomed to collapse without their help. A Wall Street Journal study revealed a remarkable fact that few Americans know; From 2000-2017 fracking companies spent $280 billion more to extract fracked oil and gas than they received in revenue. Fracking is nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme predicated on the constant issuing of debt and stock. Fracking wells deplete quickly. There is a constant need for more expensive drilling. The remaining areas that will be fracked have less productive wells. Much of the debt fracking companies have issued is back loaded while the well's production is front loaded. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue generated to meet debt obligations. What made the scheme possible was the artificially low interest rates created by the Federal Reserve. There was a demand for yield that drove investment into debt of dubious quality. A crash is inevitable.

Posted by: David | Oct 31 2020 18:57 utc | 29

@Bemildred #23
You said:

Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch.

I am curious why you think so.
Biden is nothing, if not a creature of habit (of obedience to his corporate masters).
Biden likely NSC: Tony Blinken. Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy NSC under Obama.
Susan "Bomber" Rice?
John Kerry?
Sally Yates? The one who signed the FISA warrants based on the Steele Dossier (based on 2 drunkard Russians in Malta mad at being fired)
Michael Bloomberg?
Jamie Dimon?
The only "fresh blood" in this group is the teenage blood they inject to try and remain young.
Elizabeth Warren, were Biden to appoint her as Treasury Secretary, *would* constitute fresh blood.
The likelihood of the Senator from MBNA appointing her to that position is zero.
I would love to be wrong in that instance, but it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 19:03 utc | 30

What is trumps legacy so far ?
Let’s call that —- ‘The Crimes Of Donald Trump’
Well he has legitimised cold blooded murder.
Ditto racism.
Run roughshod over national laws and conventions. — Invading an embassy. Assange, koshogie murder, white helmit chlorine attack false flag. Funding and arming by US of Isis.
Corporate mansloughter by virus.
Interference in numerous country’s internal politics.
Allowing Israel to interfer take over US politics.
The above are a few that comes to mind.

Have we done away with law and order ?

Feel free to add to my ‘Crimes of Donald Trump’ list.
In a word normalisation.

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 31 2020 19:06 utc | 31

Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:36 utc | 7

I hope you are right that the US will avoid war in Syria because they would lose. I was, on the other hand, very impressed that Flournoy was advocating that no fly zone in August of 2016. It was on the basis of her article at that time I fled the US Democratic Party. I knew it was bad before, but it suddenly became clear how Hillary would lead us int WWIII.

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 31 2020 19:08 utc | 32

c1ue @Oct31 18:55 #27

We've talked at moa about how policy doesn't change much between Democrat and Republican Administrations. And we've talked about the Illusion of Democracy.

That each President has a different personality as well as different priorities and challenges during their time in office doesn't indicate any fundamental difference in how we are governed.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 31 2020 19:10 utc | 33

Mark2 @Oct31 19:06 #31

Yes, Trump is normalizing the 'Rules Based Order' in which financial and military power dictates what should be.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 31 2020 19:13 utc | 34

And Hillary Clinton wants to be Secretary of Defense in a Biden administration. Not only would the world be in trouble I could see her using the DOD internal hit teams to go after her domestic enemies. They will make 8 years of Bush junior look like a Disneyland vacation. It will be similar to the many unsolved murders of Weimar Germany.

Posted by: circumspect | Oct 31 2020 19:16 utc | 35

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 19:03 utc | 30

That was sarcasm, I knew it was going to cause trouble, sarcasm never works on the web unless you add a /sarc tag or something, I guess I feel a bit perverse today.

But to be serious, any attempt to predict what comes next here must rely on the idea that the future will be like the past, we extrapolate in other words, from various trends that we pick out. We can expect Biden to remain who he has been in the past, politicfally he's a hack, what we know of Harris does not suggest any principles to speak of either, so I feel more like I want to pay attention to what's coming than trying to predict what they is going to do or not do. That likely depends on "contingencies" just as in the past.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 31 2020 19:17 utc | 36

#23 - "I don't see that the political/managerial classes here are up to the job of managing that change, have shown any aptitude for it or understanding of it in the past either."

This is a highly relevant observation. For some time the character and intellectual scope of the political/managerial sectors in the West have been noticeably mediocre, and will likely continue as such for the foreseeable future. The necessary reforms of capitalism were vetoed decades ago, ensuring that productive energies would gradually dissipate. For the last decade all the West has had to offer the rest of humanity is neoliberal austerity, colour revolutions, and armament contracts. This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out self-imposed isolation, a process the political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging and supporting without realizing it at all.

Posted by: jayc | Oct 31 2020 19:18 utc | 37

Interesting to see how the kayfabe vocabulary of Dim propaganda infects everyone's thought and speech. Including b's:

"'Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies."
Republican my eye. Democrat policies, period. A party founded, maintained and run to implement the ruling class empire and war agenda, just like the Repucrats.
As if Obama was some kind of exception. Ditch this language.

Posted by: Piero Colombo | Oct 31 2020 19:18 utc | 38

Hoyeru @28

"Giving health care to 20 million poor Americans ain't nothing to sneeze at".

On the contrary, it would be a very good thing, to be applauded.
But when, o when, is it ever gonna happen? We've been waiting for it too long.

Posted by: Piero Colombo | Oct 31 2020 19:20 utc | 39

usa is the major unknown;
China and Russia don’t need to physically war - they are winning at PR around the globe.
Even tiny Cuba has greatly better creds!
usa needs to be a people who truly and consistently respect their allies.
Which comes back to usa being the major unknown.
'Cept for warmongering.

Posted by: dfnslblty | Oct 31 2020 19:27 utc | 40

The blob from the swamp wants to be heard with Why Those 780 Top National Security Leaders Support Biden. .think 'Get Russia.'

“All of us who spent careers in the military were raised on the notion that you lead by example, and President Trump has been the antithesis of that in dealing with this pandemic,” said Charles “Steve” Abbot, former commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and deputy Homeland Security Adviser. “Instead of taking steps that I would call ‘Crisis Management 101,’ President Trump shirked his duty to the nation by failing to provide the central leadership necessary to get our arms around the problem, and he continues to mislead the entire nation about this terrible threat. The result of that failure of leadership was that his administration committed an unrelenting string of missteps, and the American public has lost trust in what the president tells them.”

The sixth Fleet is Europe, so "this terrible threat" must be Russia, which is the natural enemy of the DNC/AtlanticCouncil/NATO unlike Trump the 'Putin-lover.'
And more on anti-Russia, from the article:
President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton said earlier this year that Trump had repeatedly raised the issue of withdrawing the United States from NATO, and warned of “a very real risk” that Trump would actually follow through in a second term.

Nicholas Burns, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and the number three official at the State Department, put it this way: “Every modern president since Harry Truman has viewed our commitment to democratic allies around the world as sacrosanct, because for half a century those alliances have been a key source of American power.” He noted that a dissolution of NATO is at the top of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s wish list. “Under President Trump we have walked away from that global leadership, and, as a result, trust in the United States has plummeted even among our closest friends. That’s done enormous damage.”

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 31 2020 19:30 utc | 41

This is a journey towards an eventual hollowed-out self-imposed isolation, a process the political/managerial sectors are actively encouraging and supporting without realizing it at all.

Posted by: jayc | Oct 31 2020 19:18 utc | 37

I've been sort of fascinated by that for some time, back when I was young we were still smart enough to know we had to compete with the USSR, and that we therefore had to develop our human capital. And we did pretty well for a couple decades, but then after VietNam they stopped doing that and choose the present "system" instead. Thus abandoning their long-term ability to compete, the source of their power in the first place. Banana republics do not compete well. Decadent.

But you have to give credit to the Russians and the Chinese too, their achievements are impressive by any standard. Our enemies, the ones who have survived, have all proved their mettle.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 31 2020 19:35 utc | 42

Can be, can be, no expectations in Biden / Harris. Nevertheless, Tronald is definitely not the lesser evil. His foreign policy is also heading for a clash with China, and things are not going well with Russia either. The warmongering anti-Iran axis has his support, the war in Yemen continues, he won't leave Syria alone, his extremely Israel-friendly attitude increases the danger of war. Everything that is suspected of being left-wing in South America is strangled.

In addition, he has an encouraging effect on all the fascists of the world, his disastrous ecological policy, his negative influence on the treatment of the Corona crisis, his general dislike of multilateral organizations and treaties on which the weaker states of the world are compulsorily dependent. Overall, he exerts an extremely negative influence on the entire globe. He should be disposed of.

He will lose the elections, but what happens then is open.

Posted by: pnyx | Oct 31 2020 19:50 utc | 43

In 2009, Biden tried very hard to convince Obama not to surge 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Obama listened to the generals not his VP.

Posted by: Maureen O | Oct 31 2020 19:57 utc | 44

The claim that support for minority rule isn't purely partisan BS is yet another lie. The moral principle in countermajoritarianism like the Founders' is that democracy cannot be allowed to threaten property. Except of course property before democracy, before liberty, before humanity is a vile and disgusting tenet that shames everyone so lost to common decency. The defense that a piece of parchment, a law, makes things moral and righteous and that even opposition is somehow wrong is an offense against common sense. By that standard, the Thirteen, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were the end of freedom in America!

It's one thing to have a mind deranged by rabid hate of your perceived social superiors, but to openly uphold vulgarity is merely snobbery inverted. It is a mean and small minded vice, always, and never a virtue. The Access: Hollywood tape was proof of vulgarity but to defend it as not being proof of a crime but as a positive good is vicious. Vicious is not a synonym for "bad ass." Or if it news, then "bad ass" is a horrible insult.

And, speaking of deranged minds, Wilson was felled by a stroke and Reagan was felled by Alzheimer's, yet they did not fall from power. Quite aside from the question of how anyone could decide who is battier, Trump or Biden, Biden will never be replaced by Harris for incapacity short of a coma.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 31 2020 20:11 utc | 45

I agree wholeheartedly with the concluding paragraph

Posted by: Linda Amick | Oct 31 2020 20:20 utc | 46

A very cogent analysis by b. But I believe the return of the Blob may not be as ominous as feared.

The dangerous component of the Blob's collective fantasy is the confrontation against China and Russia. As late as 4, 5 years ago the prevailing sentiment among Americans, the masses and the elites alike, was one in which The Empire's might was still considered unquestionably dominant and unchallenged. There was penchant for dressing down both China and Russia, and the clumsy maneuvers of the Blob's operators (Obama/Clinton/Bolton/Rice et al) were wholeheartedly supported even if contemptuously regarded for their clumsiness. That sentiment has evaporated, especially after Chinese and Russian military parades as well as American's numerous own infrastructure project failures along with abject performances of Boeing jets and Zumwalt class destroyers. The COVID19 pandemic adds salt to injury.
There is an issue with self confidence now, up and down the hierarchy within the American society, perhaps with the lone exception of Trump's rednecks.

So, the Blob may return with a vengeance but their political capital may be rather meager. They will be all mouth and little substance, as would Trump's prospective second term.

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 31 2020 20:31 utc | 47

I've tuned out of thesilly circus of the US election since the day Biden became the Democratic Party flag bearer.

Posted by: Steve | Oct 31 2020 20:33 utc | 48

I do not always agree with the opinion of the Saker, but in this matter I tend to support him and can only quote from one of his recent articles:


And, in truth, the biggest difference between Obama and Trump, is that Trump did not start any real wars. Yes, he did threaten a lot of countries with military attacks (itself a crime under international law), but he never actually gave the go ahead to meaningfully attack (he only tried some highly symbolic and totally ineffective strikes in Syria). I repeat – the man was one of the very few US Presidents who did not commit the crime of aggression, the highest possible crime under international law, above crimes against humanity or even genocide, because the crime of aggression “contains within itself the accumulated evil”, to use the words of the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson. I submit that just for this reason alone any decent person should choose him over Biden (who himself is just a front for “President” Harris and a puppet of the Clinton gang). Either that, or don’t vote at all if your conscience does not allow you to vote for Trump. But voting Biden is unthinkable for any honest person, at least in my humble opinion.

I am surprised by people who are of the opinion that half-dead Biden, suffering from obvious dementia, is better. If only not Trump.
In 2016, Hilary, in fact, openly stated that she was going to use the so-called 'nuclear blackmail' against the Russian Federation. And there was no guarantee that this crazy old witch, having become president, would not have pressed the very button that launched nuclear missiles at Russia. Four years ago, the choice was between an insane sadistic misanthropist who could actually start a nuclear war, and a "dark horse" businessman with the illusory prospect of some improvement in relations between the two strongest nuclear powers. I do not want to drag in religion and the intervention of higher powers here, but it may not be at all accidental that Trump snatched victory from the witch. Maybe we avoided a nuclear war.

Yes, now both options are bad. But of the two evils, it is better to choose the lesser, which, of course, Trump is.


two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden’s only foreign policy achievement, and re-starting nuclear disarmament negotiations with Russia. That would imply containment of Russia, not a new all-out Cold War, even as Biden has recently stressed, on the record, that Russia is the “biggest threat” to the US.

What? Funny. I thought it was Obama (read Democrats) who started this new Cold War. Just to remind - It was Obama who made the decision to deploy missiles in Poland and Romania, which are a direct threat to Russia. It is Obama & Co who are responsible for the Ukrainian coup, which, in fact, became a trigger for the total deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. It was Obama who began the unprecedented expropriation of Russian diplomatic property in the U.S. and the expulsion of russian diplomats. It was under Obama that "the doping scandal" was organized against Russia. And so on and so on...
Trump just continued what Obama had started. It is strange that Pepe Escobar does not understand this.

Posted by: alaff | Oct 31 2020 20:48 utc | 49

Off topic
Boris Johnson announces Britain will be going into its second fake total lockdown this coming Thursday.

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 31 2020 20:50 utc | 50

If Iran and/or Venezuela get their oil back on the market, that will cause an oil price crash that would "end fracking." It can't survive oil much under $50/barrel over a long term.

An oil price crash would also effect the larger energy market, making solar and wind less competitive, even though their direct competition is really coal rather than oil.

Huge and powerful constituencies don't care about Iran or Venezuela, but care very much about oil prices staying high. They make common cause now, and will under Biden too.

Posted by: Mark Thomason | Oct 31 2020 20:52 utc | 51

Well, having given deep consideration to the question and the current advanced state of malady in the USA - I will leave it to Vic as he has summarised the position with minimum fuss - here.

Enjoy this sharp witted, all encompassing 4 minute rant from inside the asylum. I would shout the bar for all with this one.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 31 2020 20:53 utc | 52

Biden is an old man. He is a tired man, if not now, then in six months. He has already told wealthy donors that nothing will change. He has no record of leadership. He has no record of achievement, unless you count floating to the top. He will be the establishment’s model ‘status quo, do-nothing Democrat.

Biden will preside as a figurehead legitimizing the shenanigans of the blob, Wall Street, and the US Chamber of Commerce, and Big Oil. Heck, I doubt that he will even override many of Trump’s executive orders, except for the token bone thrown to his delusional supporters.

Harris will be as much a figurehead as Biden. She is utterly unprepared. While she is likable enough, she lacks gravitas and “credibility,” which, she will be convinced, can be established only by bombing a few wogs back to the Stone Age.

Both will serve as placeholders until Trump 2.0 arrives in 2024. Elites will sufficiently sabotage the economy until then to assure that Trump 2.0 with neocon values is elected in 2024.

Posted by: JohnH | Oct 31 2020 20:58 utc | 53

thanks b... i appreciate you highlighting pepe's article... i enjoyed it.. terms like “Kaganate of Nulandistan”, " The Three Harpies" and etc...

i still like the dynamic between joe rogan and glenn greenwald discussion on this same topic from the link debs left yesterday -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rcLsoIKgA&feature=youtu.be

the usa is an approaching train wreck and no amount of persuading one side or the other is going to change any of this... the world is moving on and rightfully so... no one wants to get down into this... the swamp and fake news is permanent at this point...until the whole system implodes - this is what we have in store.. vote for trump or biden - it matters not... one is a slower motion move then the other - but the end result is the same... there is no way out... sorry... on the other hand it is beautiful and sunny here where i live... life goes on outside this political circus called the usa presidential election..

Posted by: james | Oct 31 2020 21:11 utc | 54

77,000 voters may have decided the outcome of the 2016 election, but they were not the only ones who voted for Trump. 63 million voters did.

Posted by: lysias | Oct 31 2020 21:17 utc | 55

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26
I do not agree with you on 99.8% of wordly affairs BUT this comment you wrote is pure gold!!
Even on the other side of the Atlantic ocean @ the western edge of Europe us reading types know the difference.
And it annoys me just as much as it seems to annoy you how few people know that the US of terror is a republic and NOT a democracy😂🥴

Posted by: Per/Norway | Oct 31 2020 21:20 utc | 56

By the way, people who are truly interested in seeing the Democratic Party removed as an obstacle to a true people's party (no one else here wants a workers' party) the very best way to split the national party would be a clean sweep of House, Senate and Presidency followed by enough treasonous shenanigans by Trump to arouse mass resistance. (Genuinely treasonous as in subverting the republic by force, fraud and violence, not in the half witted definition of dealings with foreigners so popular around here.) Biden et al. would split the Democrats rather than enact a popular program---which would be left because the when the masses begin to move they always march left.

Also by the way, Bloomberg is continuing his bid for a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, aping the media version of Trump's hostile takeover of the Republic (NOT A DEMOCRACY!) Party.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 31 2020 21:27 utc | 57

"Change' was an Obama marketing slogan to sell his Republican light policies. A real change never came."

I was calling Obama "Bush Lite" during his first campaign. Anyone who read his foreign policy platform would have to agree. And the *only* reason he negotiated the JCPOA was because he needed at least one foreign policy win for his eight years - and he knew it would be torn up by whoever came after him, either Clinton or Trump. But he needed it for his own narcissistic view of his "legacy".

People forget that Obama wrote the leaders of Brazil and Turkey in 2010 prior to their negotiation with Iran for a deal, listing the points of a deal he would accept. Clinton pooh-poohed the idea that those leaders could get a deal. After a marathon negotiation session, they got it. The US then dismissed the deal 24 hours later, prompting Brazil's leader to release the Obama letter to establish that Obama was a liar.

"Change You Can Believe In" - "Make America Great" - only morons believe in campaign slogans - or the people who utter them.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 31 2020 21:27 utc | 58

Pardon me b !

"The other issue is arms control. While a Harris (Biden) administration may take up Putin's offer to unconditionally prolong the New-START agreement for a year it will certainly want more concessions from Russia than that country is willing to give."

Russia has made it abundantly and repetitively clear that they are not doing INCREMENTAL DEFEAT any more - there are no concessions to make - they no longer do supine acceptance of UKUSAi rights to dominate, subvert or belligerently mass arms at their advancing borders.

Why would any country concede to the incessant belligerence of the west? They must have lead in their drinking water to be that dumb!

The concession must come from the aggressor, the colour revolution fomenter, the incessant smearer and hate propagandist - the west.

A Harris/Biden Presidency lacks those attributes (perhaps lacks any attributes of goodwill) and a Trump Presidency is no different.

The narcissistic personality disorders run the USA - the asylum inmates are in charge, not the elected leaders. And the elected leaders are morons or wholly captive klutzes.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 31 2020 21:28 utc | 59

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 31 2020 17:36 utc | 7 They didn't do a No-Fly Zone in Syria when they could, e.g. 2013. The reason it was not done is that it was too difficult to do

Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya - vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August, 2013. He only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him by getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking no-fly zone yet again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria. Then sometime in 2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama was having a meeting on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or Wednesday, the Russia Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian military assets would be shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there wouldn't be a no-fly zone.

So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times* trying to start a war with Syria.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 31 2020 21:34 utc | 60

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 17:51 utc | 10

Correct (for once).

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 31 2020 21:36 utc | 61

Bemildred #23

"Biden will bring fresh blood to the Presidency, just you watch."

YES. thank you for the clarifying statement, as that is exactly what I expect too. Harris /Biden blood spattered globe again. Or a Trump spattered equivalent. No socialism for the USA.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 31 2020 21:41 utc | 62

We went from snarling Cheney Wars to shiny happy Obama wars to snarling Trump wars now back to shiny happy Biden wars to... Forever War is obviously bi-partisan.

But perhaps with Great Depression 2.0 coming this Dark Winter in order to stave off civil war and/or revolution they'll throw resources to much needed infrastructure projects, diminish to a slight degree the supremacy of the for-profit healthcare industry through a laughable but better than nothing 'public option' and make some baby steps toward avoiding climate catastrophic.

The change is marginal. And probably meaningless. Hope is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Posted by: gottlieb | Oct 31 2020 21:42 utc | 63

@ Posted by: lysias | Oct 31 2020 21:17 utc | 56

Those 77,000 - purely because of location - overcame 3 million+ votes. That's the equivalent of giving those 77 thousands the right to vote 40 times each.

Are you in favor of censitary vote?

--//--

@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 31 2020 18:50 utc | 26

Yes, but at the end of the day, Hilary Clinton got 3.6 million votes more than Donald Trump.

You're telling everybody you're in favor of censitary vote in opposition to one person, one vote, just because you don't want an ideological enemy of yours to win. This is still liberal - but you would have to dig to the early liberal thinkers (Locke, Tocqueville etc.) to find such reactionary and elitist opinion.

Even by liberal standards today censitary vote is already considered outdated/reactionary. Concretely, you're defending the interests of a blue collar elite of the north-midwest, who number on the dozens of thousands, in detriment to more than half the voting population. It is what it is: you can't fight against mathematics.

--//--

@ Posted by: Down South | Oct 31 2020 18:47 utc | 25

So what? Fuck Michael Moore. If Michael Moore told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? He's not the guardian of the absolute truth, he's just a random guy with an opinion.

Michael Moore can defend a mythical blue collar America how much he wants to - it doesn't change the fact this America doesn't exist anymore. America is, nowadays, the land of the petit-bourgeois, the land of the small-medium business-owners (a.k.a. zombie business-owners) , of the New York financial assets owning middle class "coastal elites", of the influencers, of Kim and Chloe Kardashian, of Starbucks, Amazon and Apple, of the billionaire tied to Wall Street. That's the true America, want it.

America will never be blue collar again. The insistence of turning America blue collar again will destroy the American Empire. They will be the Gorbachevs of the USA.

Posted by: vk | Oct 31 2020 21:53 utc | 64

Richard Steven Hack #61


Obama tried *six times* to start a war with Syria. First he submitted *three* UNSC Resolutions with Chapter 7 language in them. Russia and China - burned by the US over Libya - vetoed those. Then Obama was within hours of launching an attack on Syria in August, 2013. He only stopped when he got push-back from Congress and then Putin outmaneuvered him by getting Assad to give up his chemical weapons. Then in fall, 2015, Obama was talking no-fly zone yet again. Putin again outmaneuvered him by committing Russian forces to Syria. Then sometime in 2016 - I forget the exact month - there was a news article saying Obama was having a meeting on that Friday to discuss no-fly zone yet *again*. That Tuesday or Wednesday, the Russia Ministry of Defense issued a statement that anyone attacking Syrian military assets would be shot down by Russia. On Friday, Obama pulled back and said there wouldn't be a no-fly zone.

So it was Russia, primarily, that was the reason Obama didn't not succeed *six times* trying to start a war with Syria.

Thank you, it seems that your succinct statement should be included as an auto response macro to every laguerre post. They never stop their blathering those AI CPU's. My take is that they are a retro definition of the term interrupt.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 31 2020 22:11 utc | 65

@ Jackrabbit

I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor but atm you have a serious case of TDS. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?


Posted by: MarkU | Oct 31 2020 22:16 utc | 66

Now I know I have been very very harsh on trump and his supporters of late. Please forgive me ! It’s what we call ‘tough love’ I do have a heart, dispite all of America’s crimes against the rest of the world. I did hope that the US at the last moment would come to it’s senses and turn it’s back on trump. Alas ! I fear not. Really sad, I’m sorry.
But for the rest of the world including myself, we can only watch with fascination and relief as America destroys itself from within. My heart goes out to the inocent.
I fear trump supporters are in for a ——
Pyrrhic victory (spelt correctly) I recommend googling the word.

Adolph Hitler rose to power with similar glory and power unbridled. Just as trump now !! Then what ?
Dresden!!
Think on.

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 31 2020 22:19 utc | 67

Posted by: MarkU | Oct 31 2020 22:16 utc | 67

Why is it so hard to believe? The media needs a heel and they actually prefer Trump to remain in office. Maybe on the ground level you have a lot of regular old liberals, but the upper echelons of the media (and holding companies) are all about keeping the ratings bonanza going. Another Trump term but with Democrat control of Congress would be like manna from heaven to them. Matt Taibbi is one writer who has chronicled the phenomenon since before Trump ever got elected. Here's a more recent piece. Let me know if it's paywalled and I can copy/paste.
CNN chief has an ethical problem.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Oct 31 2020 22:29 utc | 68

On JCPOA, The Nation had a quote from one of Biden's foreign policy advisers to a group of Jewish campaing donors saying all sanctions on Iran will remain intact unless they return to full compliance. I agree that it will not be as simple as that given political reality, but Biden was closely involved in its negotiation and likely has some ownership of it.

I expect there to be a false flag attack by "Iran" to throw sand in the gears if re-implementation looks likely, or perhaps an Israeli attack on Lebanon. Best plausible outcome is Iran keeps its current level of cooperation, and a Biden admin looks the other way on sanctions violationsw.

Posted by: Schmoe | Oct 31 2020 22:39 utc | 69

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected? I mean seriously? What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?
_____________________________________________
Of course it was all phony and designed to not ring true, which benefits Trump by giving him credibility with the voters.
The whole idea behind trump is the same as with Reagan he is portrayed as the outsider doing battle against the corrupt and powerful Washington swamp. Trump is Reagan on steroids. But it is all phony both Reagan and Trump are one of the powerful elites and their opposition by the left wing media is designed to give them credibility with voters.

Remember that half of the corporate controlled media loves Trump and sings his praises daily. It is only half the corporate media that is attacking Trump the other half is showing its viewers blacks that strongly support Trump and solid evidence that Russiagate is pure bullshit.

As for what the media would do if they really wanted to bring Trump down. They would attack him on real issues instead of phony ones that actually strengthen trump's credibility.

Posted by: jinn | Oct 31 2020 22:40 utc | 70

What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?
This,
https://sputniknews.com/viral/202010311080939179-ukrainian-code-biden-has-netizens-in-stitches-as-he-pledges-to-mobilise-trunalimunumaprzure/
Nice,

Posted by: Josh | Oct 31 2020 22:45 utc | 71

"What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?"

The same thing it always changes, absolutely nothing except who accepts the bribes from the elite.

As long as the American people stay asleep they will continue with the "American DREAM" until they suddenly wake up inside their newly constructed corporate industrial zone. The prison industrial complex is the model society if you're an elite.

Have a wonderful weekend everyone, don't get so caught up in this sham (s)election that you ruin what little freedom you have left.

Posted by: dave | Oct 31 2020 22:59 utc | 72

Berlin’s Madame Tussauds has put Donald Trump’s wax figure into a dumpster. Is this normal behavior by a museum? Is this not “an interference in the democratic processes of the United States”? Or is it okay because the Germans are doing it? (But God forbid if a Russian or an Iranian criticizes a U.S. presidential candidate publicly ahead of the election.) Have similar performances been staged against Bush, under whom the U.S. intelligence agencies manufactured claims of Saddam Hussein preparing to use weapons of mass destruction, which the U.S. “free” media printed almost in unison without any criticism, leading to an invasion that killed 650,000 Iraqis? When a visitor beheaded Adolf Hitler’s figure in 2008, the same museum had this to say:

Madame Tussauds is non-political and makes no comment or value-judgement either on the persons who are exhibited in the Museum or on what they have done during their lifetime.

I guess starting a war that resulted in deaths of 26,000,000 million Soviets—most of them Russians—is not nearly as bad as being a rude person who has once recommended in private grabbing women by their genitals.

Posted by: S | Oct 31 2020 22:59 utc | 73

*26,000,000 Soviets

Posted by: S | Oct 31 2020 23:01 utc | 74

@ jinn (71) and _K_C (69)

You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other side. Remember the saying "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people". Whoever wins the election is going to be faced with major unrest, the worms are clearly not going back in the can. There are easier ways to get someone re-elected.

Trump is clearly at least as toxic as any of them wrt foreign policy, however he is not a globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.

Posted by: MarkU | Oct 31 2020 23:18 utc | 75

@ Maureen O # 45
In 2009, Biden tried very hard to convince Obama not to surge 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan.
Perhaps he was successful? . . . Obama actually surged 70,000 troops into Afghanistan, raising Bush's 30K to 100K+. That got Mr Hope & Change the Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 31 2020 23:19 utc | 76

Posted by: alaff | Oct 31 2020 20:48 utc | 50

What is JCPOA, in reality?

We should remember there were 6 UNSC against Iran, and one of them under Chapter 7 ( the most dangerous), before JCPOA. We should keep in mind there are gang of 5 + 1( 5  in UNSC + Germany) coalition behind 6 resolutions.

From Iran's eye, Imperialism was, combination of these 5 in the club, and their collateral and vassals ( Germany, Japan, etc). The master of JCPOA, caught the opportunity to put a wedge into the body of the club, and it worked perfectly. America is mad cutting her own arteries, out side the club. Trump or Biden are not different in this regard, America needs some one to understand the depth of the wound and retreat immediately, before too much hemorrhage. And such person ( or group ) is not in horizon.  Let it die by her own wounding.

Going back to JCPOA is not so simple. 

Posted by: arata | Oct 31 2020 23:21 utc | 77

Down South #15

Thank you for that Philip Giraldi report. The descent into madness from the raucus sounds of the echo chamber. Where does a revolution start?

First they need to dismantle their media concentration across the spectrum of "news" including all media forms.

Second they need to send their journalists through the same cultural revolution cycle as was done in the China and other countries where people go to different work supporting the growth of their communities for a five to ten year separation from the craft of journalism. Listen to the people and sweat alongside them in their labour to survive.

Sure there is much more but the echo chamber must surely be demolished at commencement.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 31 2020 23:34 utc | 78

RSH @ 61:

I believe back in August 2013 after a CW attack in East Ghouta, east of Damascus, wrongly blamed on the Syrian govt that Obama was preparing to enforce his no-fly zone threat. Then the UK parliament voted not to support such a threat, Obama hesitated and then Putin saw his opportunity and posted an opinion in the New York Times. That ultimately stopped the US from going ahead with the attack.

I'm sure British MPs have since been forced to "come to their senses".

Posted by: Jen | Oct 31 2020 23:39 utc | 79

I linked to and commented upon Pepe's article when it was published by Asia Times a few days ago, and I don't see any reason to add to it as b echoes much of my sentiment. What I will do is link to a brief item by Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei, professor of International Relations at Fudan University, "How China elects their political leaders", which seems very appropriate at this moment in time:

"China has established a system of meritocracy or what can be described as ‘selection plus election’. Competent leaders are selected on the basis of performance and broad support, through a vigorous process of screening, opinion surveys, internal evaluations and various types of elections. This is much in line with the Confucian tradition of meritocracy. After all, China is the first country that invented civil service examination system or the ‘Keju’ system....

"Indeed, the Chinese system of meritocracy today, makes it inconceivable that anyone as weak as George W. Bush or Donald Trump could ever come close to the position of the top leadership. It’s not far-fetched to claim that the China model is more about leadership rather than the showmanship as it is in the West. China’s meritocratic governance challenges the stereotypical dichotomy of democracy versus autocracy. From Chinese point of view, the nature of the state including its legitimacy, has to be defined by its substance, that is, good governance, competent leadership and success in meeting the people’s needs."

Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and even read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State, of which an open preview can be read here. Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to the above book and the BRI project, which can be read here.

I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to say about China.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 31 2020 23:43 utc | 80

Uncle T @ 79:

I'm all for sending the entire Australian news media into a cave for 5 - 10 years. Maybe in 10,000 years archaeologists investigating the cave will be wondering whether fossil remains there denote a species of human more primitive than those found in Liang Bua cave on Flores Island in Indonesia. :-)

Posted by: Jen | Oct 31 2020 23:43 utc | 81

@worldblee #1

Can you elaborate on this funding you referred to for BLM protests? What is your evidence that it was actually funding street protests? Are you referring to the national corporate BLM? If so, what does that have to do with leaderless protests in the streets?

Posted by: Hagbard Celine | Oct 31 2020 23:51 utc | 82

Mark2 #68

Adolph Hitler rose to power with similar glory and power unbridled. Just as trump now !! Then what ?
Dresden!!
Think on.

Ahem, Think about this:

From February 13 to February 15, 1945, during the final months of World War II (1939-45), Allied forces bombed the historic city of Dresden, located in eastern Germany. The bombing was controversial because Dresden was neither important to German wartime production nor a major industrial center, and before the massive air raid of February 1945 it had not suffered a major Allied attack. By February 15, the city was a smoldering ruin and an unknown number of civilians—estimated between 22,700 to 25,000–were dead.

Dresden and other cities held magnificent collections of human posterity. Cities of science - of intellectual excellence and endeavour within europe. Cities of humans associated with brilliant minds doing the work of human understanding and progress.

Sure Hitler's imbecile adventures ably funded by global private finance capitalism and a hatred of communism led to war that ultimately led to the vengeful destruction of great cities and great store houses and museums of this earth of mankind.

Hitler did not bomb Dresden.

Germans were proud of their science and their knowledge and storehouses and museums.

Europe shared in that pride in excellence as did many throughout the world.

The UKUSA bombed Dresden in mid February 1945. They had no need to do so as Germany was crippled, Berlin was surrounded and doomed. On April 20, Hitler’s birthday, the first Russian shells fell on Berlin. What followed was a brief but brutal fight.

Those first shells falling on Berlin TWO months after the demolition of cities of science and archeology and human history. NOT cities of military significance.

I think of Vietnam

I think of Iraq

I think of Korea

I think of China

I think of Japan

Bombed by UKUSA. So lets not obsess with a dead nazi comrade, lets open our eyes to the live nazis.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 0:09 utc | 83

Jen #82

++ :))

little hairy pens preserved in paperbark and beeswax perhaps

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 0:12 utc | 84

I think Biden will win this presidency, and win it fairly easily. It will become apparent early on that the Biden Administration intends not only to turn the heat up on Russia, but will continue Trump's aggression towards China. There may be a feint towards renewing JCPOA, but it will not be fulfilled, and aggression towards Iran will not abate either.

The Mighty Wurlitzer of pro-war propaganda is again spinning up in anticipation. The Atlantic and the Economist have been busy comparing Chinese Policy towards it's Muslim citizens with the Holocaust...Russia, Russia, Russia!!! which never went away is again being amped up.

But, this isn't 2016. Four years has given China and Russia time to further modernize their militaries. Iran has developed its missile and drone programs to the point that a conflict with Israel will result in mutual destruction. In 2016 USA/NATO had the military advantage, but that is now gone, and the balance shifts further by the day. I almost feel sorry for Biden, as he will be the one taking the blame when the economy collapses and America gets their asses handed to them. Hopefully it doesn't go nuclear, but I am not very optimistic.

With the NeoCon infestation capturing the Democratic Party, the media, and a big chunk of the Republican, it is only a matter of time before they get their way. Short-sided parasites as they are, this time they will kill their host. If humanity survives, a new multi-polar era may emerge.

Posted by: tribolij@uoregon.edu | Nov 1 2020 0:34 utc | 85

Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is just fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the German public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don’t belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect

Posted by: Mark2 | Nov 1 2020 0:56 utc | 86

Posted by: MarkU | Oct 31 2020 23:18 utc | 76

Naw, you're not reading me right. Did you check out the Taibbi piece? He has numerous others over the past 4 years. Also see Les Moonves and other corporate media executives' statements on Trump during that same time period. I acknowledged that the rank and file among the media class is largely woke, liberal and pro-Biden (and very anti-Trump), but they don't call the shots and you're not looking at the situation with enough attention to details. It's the little things that give it away.

Ever heard the saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity"? A brand like Trump's has been clearly demonstrated to benefit immensely from the negative coverage. The media are hated by Trump's followers and the people who watch the media hate Trump. So what does that tell you? Compare CNN and MSNBC ratings during Trump's term to Obama's. They know that hate sells and they never call Trump out for his ACTUAL bad behaviors (other than COVID and ACB, I guess) while they focus on meaningless nonsense, thus distracting the public from the bi-partisan corporate dominated graft going on and the Empire's ongoing wars and sanctions programs abroad. Very rarely if ever will you read or hear about the hundreds of thousands of people who have died due to American sanctions on Iran or Venezuela. Why is that? Because top brass at the corporate media outlets support it. They cheered when he launched the missiles at Syria.

Someone did a study or analysis on the amount of air time given to Trump versus the Democrat primary and it wasn't even close. He plays them and his supporters like a fiddle, too. SNL had him on NBC when he was running against Hillary. Some argue that this might have been due to the same mindset that Hillary's team was alleged to have had. Namely, that Trump would be the EASIEST candidate for her to beat and he had no chance, so he was harmless as a threat. I don't think it's that complicated. They know what gets ratings.

Yeah, occasionally they'll make a peep about the environment or jobs, but like the Democrats in Congress and "Intelligence" Community's Russia and Ukraine witch hunts/impeachment they intentionally ignore the types of actions that DO justify investigations and impeachments. Do you honestly think that the Democrats thought Trump would be removed from office for the bogus "whistle blower" charges they ginned up? Of course not - the Senate was never going to go along with it and it wasn't exactly secret, even over here across the pond it was obvious.

As far as him not being a globalist - he's not exactly anti-globalist when it comes to policy, but why would that matter to the corporate media? Again, it's the corporate big wigs and majority shareholders who make the calls and the reporters, editors and personalities on TV know how to toe the line without being told explicitly. Now, if you want to talk Silicon Valley and the social media giants, I'm with you - they are actively trying to help Joe Biden. But take another example - the Hunter Biden laptop story. Social media giants censored it, but it isn't like it's not being talked about non-stop by the MSM and newspapers. They just don't talk about what was IN the emails or photos, leaving some of their viewers/readers curious to go find out for themselves.

I didn't read jinn's comment in detail, but I'm definitely not trying to make points that justify voting for Biden; but I stand by my points - I'm just pointing out what's REALLY going on with all of the "negative" coverage of Donald Trump in the corporate mainstream media. At the end of the day, the corporate MSM upper brass doesn't really care who gets elected, but they also understand that having a "heel" (from the pro wrestling world) and "bad guy" to always go after on crap that's ultimately meaningless, makes it easier to sell the hate and drive ratings and subscriptions.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 1 2020 1:12 utc | 87


You summed it up beautifully tribolij. I believe it will play out just as you described. There is no basis for optimism.

Posted by: David | Nov 1 2020 1:12 utc | 88

Mark2 #87

Uncle tungsten @ 84
Please re-read my heart felt comment. It was sincerely ment. To many here think this is just fun and speculation.
But this is real, the USA have the same misguided sense of infalalabilty now, that the German public hand then.
Did we learn nothing from world war 2 ?
Please don’t belittle my urgent warning.
This is not a game. Perhaps re read my comment. Respect

Respect and apology in return Mark2. I jumped the gun.

Yes, the sense of infallibility infuses the bloodlust of the UKUSAi.

With any luck humanity will be spared their obscene and lunatic 'reprisal mania' that has rotted their minds. I somehow doubt that.

And I share your fear.

That said though - I am ever the optimist. There are many warrior clans of past decades that have made delightful blunders and ended up on the block instead of on the grog in the opponents bars. Time will tell.

I believe it is time for the great people of South America to shake off these barnacles on the arse of humanity once and for all.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 1:19 utc | 89

@MarkU, #67 -

Sorry I got a little long winded in my last reply. I think this response will make my position easier to interpret.

You asked: " What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?"

The answer to that question is the same as the answer would be if you asked what the Democrats in Congress would (have) do(ne) if they really wanted to remove him from office. They would actually investigate and attempt to prosecute a litany of possible crimes rather than silly, simplistic accusations from a "whistleblower" that anyone with a IQ over 100 could see was not going to work.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and Americans really are that stupid. It wouldn't necessarily conflict with what I've seen and heard from Democrat supporting relatives and social media contacts. A lot, if not most of them STILL believe that there was collusion between Trump and Russia. It was like my conservative friends and relatives for about a decade after the Iraq war - they were CONVINCED that we DID find WMDs and that the US media had somehow hidden it.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 1 2020 1:30 utc | 90

@vk #65
It is striking how you still refuse to acknowledge the reality of the law.
The United States is not a majoritarian democracy.
In fact, there is not one single country in the entire world that is a majoritarian democracy.
If the law were changed via the methods already written, tried and true, then I guarantee that there would be a lot more voters in the minorities of both red and blue states.
As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.
If ultimately the existing laws of the land are merely an impediments to anyone doing whatever they have the power to do, then there is no law.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 1:42 utc | 91

Uncle @ 90
Thanks for that. I feel we are in full agreement !
To perhaps clarify to those less astute than you.
My comment @ 68 points out the law of unintended consequence. The majority of Americans don’t want war, riots, poverty and distruction. They want to keep there families safe.
The comparison being the same can be said for Germans prior to the war, they weren’t evil as portrayed in history they simply made the same mistake the US is about to make. With the consequence of there country devistated. A dreadful mistake voting for the wrong man, whipped up by a false sense of superiority !
Don’t do it.
Half of America won’t tolerate it.
Free quarters of the rest of the world won’t. By voting trump you vote for your own distruction.
I would rather vote for a donkey, never mind Biden.

Posted by: Mark2 | Nov 1 2020 2:01 utc | 92

the moron wrote:

You are clearly over-thinking this, clutching at straws to justify supporting the other side.
__________________________________________
What other side???
I'm guessing you are accusing me of supporting trump but who knows maybe you think I'm supporting Biden. Either way it is stupid of you to project your "side" based logic onto others. Do you really think it is impossible to analyze without first taking a side?

Posted by: jinn | Nov 1 2020 2:19 utc | 93

c1ue #92
response to vk #65

As it is, the only partisan here is your and the Democratic party's whining about how they have more popular votes, much as the talk about packing the Supreme Court, etc etc.


Thank you, I liked that retort to vk. Can I distort your point that while the Demonazis delude themselves in more popular votes - the Repugnents have more of the un-popular votes. The deeply corrosive nonsense being shouted into the demonazi echo chamber is truly dangerous to the point that they will generate a standing wave resonance and collapse the entire building. Trouble is we will then have to endure an 11/11 to compete with their absurd 9/11 and - we'll never hear the end of it. :))

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 2:25 utc | 94

mark - serious question...have you been drinking?? cheers james who thinks you need to step away from the computer keyboard!

Posted by: james | Nov 1 2020 2:26 utc | 95

James
I share one bottle of wine a month. I don’t do drugs, but thanks for asking.
I note you don’t ask the ‘right wing’ to step a way’
But if the truth is hurting you. Perhaps you ought ?
Have a peaceful night.

Posted by: Mark2 | Nov 1 2020 2:39 utc | 96

MarkU @Oct31 22:16 #67

I remember you as being a reasonably sane contributor ...

Thanks!

=
... but atm you have a serious case of TDS.

No. I'm neither for nor against Trump. I see him as a symptom of the system who has joined (possibly long ago) Team Deep State (the managers of the Empire). If it wasn't Trump, it would be some other media-savvy guy that can con the people.

=
Are you seriously trying to tell us that the last 4 years of US media foaming at the mouth about Trump (Russia-gate, Trump supporters being 'white supremacists' and egging on a race war) were all a plot to get him re-elected?

IMO Trump's economic nationalism and zenophobia were very much planned. As was the failure of the Democrats to mount any effective resistance. They pretend to hate Trump so so much but shoot themselves in the foot all the time.

Russiagate was nothing more than a new McCarthyism. That works well for the Deep State both internationally and domestically. Any dissenter is called a "knowing or unknowing" Russian asset.

Background: I've written that Trump was meant to beat Hillary. The 2016 election was a farce. Sanders and Trump were friendly with the Clintons for a very long time. Sanders was a sheepdog (not a real candidate) and Hillary threw the race to Trump. Trump is much more capable at what he does than Hillary would've been.

I mean seriously? WTF? What the hell would they do if they wanted him removed?

If the Deep State wanted him removed (but they don't) they would find a reason to invoke the 25th Amendment. They have positioned people to do this, if necessary. For example: VP Pence was a friend of McCain (who was a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er); Atty General Barr is close to the Bushes and Mueller ('NEVER TRUMP'-ers); CIA Dir. Gina Haspel is an acolyte of John Brennan (you guessed it, a 'NEVER TRUMP'-er).

=

MarkU @Oct31 23:18 #76

...he is not a globalist and that is his major sin in their eyes.

He's not anti-globalist as you seem to suggest. He's even bragged about his business dealings with Chinese, Arabs, Russians - pretty much any group with money.

Trump and the Deep State - the true Deep State, not the pretended partisan off-shoot - are EMPIRE-FIRST (and have been for decades). You can see this in what Trump has done globally. USA just wants a bigger cut of the action because they have to do the 'heavy lifting' of taking on China and Russia.

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

I know that my cynical perspective must generate a lot of cognitive dissonance in many readers. But I don't see any other way to rationally explain Deep State actions and the history that has brought us to where are today.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 1 2020 2:41 utc | 97

MarkU

You might be interested in my comment on the Greenwald thread.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 1 2020 2:59 utc | 98

@ Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 1:42 utc | 92

The numbers are there for everybody to see: Trump won with 3 million + votes below Hilary Clinton. That is not democracy in any sense of the word unless you go back to the more traditional forms of liberalism of the 16th-19th centuries. Those are the numbers, not my opinion.

Besides, I think you're not getting the irony of your position: the situation in the USA has gotten so degenerated that you're hanging by a thread - a thread you put on a golden pedestal and claim is the salvation of the Empire (the electoral college). Where did I see this? Oh, yes - the War of Secession of 1861-1865, when the slave states were already outnumbered 6 to 1 by the northern states. They kept their parity artificially for decades, until the whole thing suddenly burst up in the war (a war where they were crushed; no chance of victory at all).

So, the problem isn't in the system per se, but the pressure the ossification of the system is building up. When they seceded, the confederates genuinely thought they were the true inheritors of the liberal thought, the slave states being the most perfect manifestation of freedom; the same situation is building up today, albeit, obviously, on a much milder scale (there's no California gold this time, just the good ol' race to the bottom).


--//--

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 2:25 utc | 95

I agree with you: the end of the electoral college (with it, any form of district vote) will give a chance for the conservatives (Republicans) to win back, for example, California (which has 40-46% of the popular vote). But it will also give the Democrats Texas (Dallas + Houston regions already make almost 50% of the population of the state and are Democratic bastions). It will also open the gates for third parties to flourish (avoiding a situation like Bernie Sanders, who had to affiliate to the Democrats).

Either way, it will give the American people and government a more honest, precise picture of the state of the nation. Or are you willing to live a perpetual illusion of "coastal elites vs heartland deplorables" forever (which, by the way, only fuels up secession as the only solution)?

Posted by: vk | Nov 1 2020 3:04 utc | 99

The myth of HIQ whitemen....
--------------------------------------

Caitlin[for prez]johnston

Russia gate morphes seamlessly into China gate without missing a beat.

One hiq white man opines, oh so innocently

IN Russia gate, they were quoting only anon, nameless witness.
This time its different, we've real witness testifying on teevee, in Tucker [fuck China] Carlson show, no less !

The poor dear was referring to an 'ex CIA' [see, an insider, wink wink] telling Tucker [fuck CHINA] Carlson ....

Psssst, many dem were CCP trojans !

ROFLAMO

oR that HUnter BIden buddy whatshisname again, who told Tucker [fuck China] Carlson oh so solemnly,

'Yes , I think the BIdens were compromised by the chicoms'

OMFG !
BIden is CCP'S man !

What happen if Biden get into the WH and immediately bomb Shanghai.?

Well half of gringos , the Trumpsters, would scream,

'Why isnt BIden bombing Beijing already, well BCOS we all know he's Xi's man in Washington' !

The dems, eager to clear their potus name, would implore earnestly,

'Hey BIden, you should invade Beijing RIGHT now, show them repuc we are just as tough, no, even better in showing the chicoms who's the boss around here.

What a devious brilliant way to get a bi partisan support for more wars.

BI partisan ?
That practically cover 99% of HIQ gringos.
hehehhehehhe


Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me hundreds of times.........

Posted by: denk | Nov 1 2020 3:34 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.