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
« previous page | next page »

@Jinn (94)

How petty and childish can you get? (No don't answer that) At least the others (jackrabbit and _K_C) responded in a civilised and rational way. you have nothing.

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 3:38 utc | 101

Richard Steven Hack @61

Excellent point: the worst war criminal of our century so far was ably stymied 6 times by the current Russian government. Which we may not always have, to continue saving us from disaster, if we help imperial aggression.

Uncle Tungsten @ 100
"the end of the electoral college (with it, any form of district vote)" is not the remedy to that; proportional representation, something long available in civilized countries, is how you ensure it.


Posted by: Piero Colombo | Nov 1 2020 4:00 utc | 102

@ Jackrabbit and _K_C

I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth certificate.

I also agree that Trump might actually have the support needed for a landslide win, not so much because of the vilification but because of the arson and looting imo. A lot of Trump supporters are keeping their heads down atm (and who can blame them) However, now it is my turn to make a prediction. I predict mass unrest on polling day. it is well accepted that the majority of the Democrat voters (fraudulent or not) are going to vote by post. Conversely most Trump supporters are likely to vote in person on the day (or try to at least)
I expect a concerted attempt to disrupt the polls by people who know that it will disproportionately affect the Trump vote. I expect violent clashes (with both sides trading blame) and a result that will please nobody. The worms are not going back into the can.

if I am wrong then I will be big enough to say so on the first appropriate thread on this site, fair enough?

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 4:22 utc | 103

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 31 2020 23:43 utc | 81

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.

More gems, thanks.

Posted by: OhOh | Nov 1 2020 4:36 utc | 104

Well it wont change Wall Street on Parade or the tireless commentary by Pam Martens and Russ Martens. Legends.

I just paused by their tavern to see what elixirs of despair or mirth they have on offer today.

Pour a strong drink comrades and scroll through the cellar. Always worth a visit.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 4:37 utc | 105

Piero Colombo #103

Uncle Tungsten @ 100
"the end of the electoral college (with it, any form of district vote)" is not the remedy to that; proportional representation, something long available in civilized countries, is how you ensure it.


Thank you Piero, but I did not advocate that point. That was an ambiguous wording committed by vk. He has jumped the shark, not I :))

I did not speak of the electoral college at all in my #95. I was basically referencing the lunatic echo chamber blather maintained by the demonazis. Yes I was being facetious and tangentially argumentative but I was having fun.

I FULLY support Proportional Representation and my comrades "on the other side of the ditch" in New Zealand practice that form well. I would welcome it on this side of the ditch in the bunya nut republic, but - fat chance - as they say. To clarify 'the ditch' is the open stretch of ocean between New Zealand and its unfortunate cousin to the west.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 1 2020 4:52 utc | 106

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 4:22 utc | 104

I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining my (and that of many others) theory that the corporate executives and majority shareholders of American media corporations (which are often holding companies and/or companies on whose boards sit members who are also on the boards of several other companies - military contractors, energy, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc.). I don't think the Olbermanns or Schiffs have anything to do with the overarching goals and desires of their respective organizations. Certainly we agree that they are not consciously working for Trump - quite the opposite. But they both also know what their higher ups would consider appropriate to investigate, and it's always meaningless crap that won't stick or get any traction with anyone on the other side of the aisle. Now, as you said it's a very toxic, divisive situation over there right now so it's also possible that even IF the corporate MSM and Democrats came up with a real legitimate investigation and brought serious charges (ala Watergate or Iran Contra - because I already know something along one of those lines exists), that not a single Republican would fall in line and help push Trump out of office. But that's a rabbit hole I'm not really that motivated to crawl down into right now.

Did you read the Taibbi piece? Please let me know if you did and whether you sought out any other work from him.

I stand by what I said about the "heel" role that the corporate MSM has for Trump, but there's an altogether different angle that I haven't gotten to yet which is another reason that I believe that the paymasters and majority shareholders (not the rank and file personalities, editors or journalists) who are very much happy to keep Trump in office. That other angle is the TYPE of coverage he is given compared to other candidates. Trump supporters in my circles ALL seem to think that the media has been really unfair to him and is always attacking him, but none of them can give me a logical explanation for this. It's a fact - Trump was given LESS negative media coverage, in the "liberal" corporate MSM than Hillary was. We're talking NYT, CNN, all the major outlets. Same principle applied with Hillary and Bernie, but it was Bernie getting all the negative press during primary season (see FAIR.org's archives for examples). Give it a read. Yeah, they get int some of the annoying Democrat tropes about Russia, but CJR never grants any credence to them - in fact in the link I provided above ("this"), they basically say the same thing that b has been saying so often here. That the scope of the alleged Russian fake news ads on US social media was TINY compared to the overall scope of the media's own content via social media. Here's an excerpt that I think is relevant:

In this context, 10 is an interesting figure because it is also the number of front-page stories the Times ran on the Hillary Clinton email scandal in just six days, from October 29 (the day after FBI Director James Comey announced his decision to reopen his investigation of possible wrongdoing by Clinton) through November 3, just five days before the election. When compared with the Times’s overall coverage of the campaign, the intensity of focus on this one issue is extraordinary. To reiterate, in just six days, The New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election (and that does not include the three additional articles on October 18, and November 6 and 7, or the two articles on the emails taken from John Podesta). This intense focus on the email scandal cannot be written off as inconsequential: The Comey incident and its subsequent impact on Clinton’s approval rating among undecided voters could very well have tipped the election.

But I really encourage you to read it in full. The article has a US liberal lean to it, but their methodology was sound. And it shows that in fact certain TYPES of coverage were biased in favor of Clinton, but OTHER TYPES of coverage were biased in favor of Trump, and that the scandal type coverage was played up way more on Clinton than Trump, despite some people's recollection that the media was constantly attacking Trump. It also goes to show that they did this at the expense of policy discussion, so personal/scandal or neutral (mentioned both, no obvious slant) were the vast majority of actual articles published.

To your last point, I disagree. I think that the same thing that has always happened in the US will happen on election day. There will be very long lines in predominantly black and Hispanic areas, and there will be Trump-friendly right-leaning groups doing various things to intimidate those voters. Groups like Antifa and BLM have no reach into areas where Trump voters are likely to come out in large numbers. And it's just plain hard to believe that young leftists or anarchists would care enough to drive out to suburbs and disrupt voting by (supposedly) majority Trump voters. It's just never happened like that before; quite the opposite.

On that note, here are a couple of things going on in my home state of Texas this past week that will likely be what happens on and after election day, through the courts and on the streets (highways). Allow me to phrase them in the incendiary terminology that I was used to coming from my conservative friends, the radio personalities they listen to and the illiberal corporate MSM.


On the streets:
Mob of armed thugs stage a riot on I-35, breaking traffic and possibly criminal laws with no citations written or arrests made and numerous innocent drivers endangered. Why were no tickets written? Not in their jurisdiction? Bullshit - I've driven that route and any LEO in between those two cities can and does write tickets on I-35. These people blocked the highway, which includes first responders and they put everyone who was trying to peacefully drive in danger. I'm sure a LOT of guns were in those trucks.


Texas Republican dirty tricksters file last minute lawsuit in district court presided over by activist right-wing judge in order to disenfranchise 100,000+ mostly black voters. The next level appeals court is staffed by a Trump appointed judge.


Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 1 2020 5:43 utc | 107

Damnit! My second link there at the end was supposed to say "In the courts:"

This blog software is pretty cumbersome for comments by 2020 standards.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 1 2020 5:48 utc | 108

Trump has been preselected to win. The rest is just a circus.

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Nov 1 2020 5:54 utc | 109

@ mark... thanks mark.. continue on and don't believe my selective questions point in any particular direction....

Posted by: james | Nov 1 2020 6:00 utc | 110

If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as the Beelzebub?

Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 111

If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as the Beelzebub?
Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 112

Because he's the heel and none of the negative coverage they give him sticks, most often on purpose. Don't mistake their serious tones and somber pronouncements for genuineness. It's not. The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it.

Sorry for the long link, I'm on a tablet and formatting is really difficult here:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/with-cnn-flap-medias-trump-era-identity-crisis-continues-195072/

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 1 2020 6:10 utc | 112

I'm amused at how much arguing is being done over which group of people supports Trump and which doesn't.

First question: Who cares? They support the *system* that *produced* Trump. And given time, we'll get another Trump in the White House - or a Hitler or even a Pol Pot. It's an inevitable result of the *system*.

Second Question: What are you going to do about it? Answer: *Nothing*. You control *nothing*. You influence *nothing*. You understand *nothing* - at least in the sense of actual evidence (as I constantly reiterate: phone calls, emails, minutes of meetings). Do you sit on the Board of Directors of MSNBC? Then you know *nothing* - except what actually happens. From which you can reason backward that *someone* wanted it to happen. Cui bono still works. Pinning it on specific people is problematic, absent real evidence.

Electoral College: When the Amendment or Congressional vote passes, call me. Until then, it's meaningless to discuss it. "You go to an election with the electoral system you have", to paraphrase some other moron.

The media and the Internet are now talking about both left and right groups going to the polls *armed*. Angry Prepper, a New York firefighter I follow on Youtube, put out a video today warning everyone to "keep your head on a swivel" when you go to vote or you may find yourself in between two groups of armed nutcases "aggravating each other", as he put it, which will inevitably lead to shots fired.

Compared to that sort of thing, in the immortal words of the priest in "Blazing Saddles", you're "just jacking off." The entire election is completely pointless. The only thing you can guarantee is that things overall will get worse - because that is what the *system* is set up to do. The only thing that might change that is the destruction of the system - and that will only happen via nuclear war or massive social collapse. And in both cases, everyone will be scrambling to save their own asses, they won't be making up new systems of government.

I just downloaded Selco Begovic's book "SHTF Survival Stories: Memories from the Balkan War". Everyone should read that - it's your future.


There are many books out there on all the different aspects of preparedness and survival that can provide you with information, checklists, and theoretical solutions to potential problems. But no matter how much you read or how well-researched the books you choose are, there’s only so much you can take away from these tomes. Getting your information from someone who has survived a "sh*t hit the fan" crisis will take your preparedness to an entirely different level. Meet Selco, a legend in the preparedness world. He survived in a city that was under siege for more than a year. He had no power, no running water, no stores for supplies, and every day, he ran the risk of meeting a violent death, whether by shells, sniper fire, or a person intent on hurting others. This book is a collection of memories from the darkest days of the Balkan War, where each moment could have been his last. This isn’t a cheerful and uplifting guide to survival. There’s no misplaced optimism. There’s only Selco, the darkness he faced, and the grim reality of an SHTF scenario most of us can’t even fathom. But if you can grasp it all before it happens, you’ll be much further ahead than those who are frozen in shock.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 6:23 utc | 113

@_K_C (108)

I am aware of the fact that corruption is rife in both parties. I saw the link to the Biden bus incident, deplorable yes but hardly on the same scale as the massive rioting, looting and intimidation of the BLM movement, they didn't actually burn down half the neighbourhood did they. Organised voting obstruction will largely be confined to swing states for obvious reasons. I made my predictions, we will see.

Just to be clear, I don't even live in the US, I am British. If I did live in the US I wouldn't vote for either party, I'm not a 'lesser of two evils' kind of guy. To be frank I am viewing events in the US with considerable trepidation, I regard what happens in the US as a window into the likely future of the UK and the rest of Europe. I fear that a nuclear war may well occur sometime in the near future, quite possibly by accident owing to the continual cutting of warning times, mainly by the US. A very powerful nuclear armed country convulsed by civil unrest is a very dangerous entity, I fear the worst and so should we all imo.

Anyway thank you for being polite and civilised and for including actual information with your replies.

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 6:32 utc | 114

Cities Gird for Election Day Unrest
Chicago, Philadelphia and New York are among those that have announced plans aimed at protecting voters.


In Michigan, an open-carry state, officials announced a ban on guns in and around polling places. “Prohibiting the open-carry of firearms in areas where citizens cast their ballots is necessary to ensure every voter is protected,” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement.

On Friday, Detroit’s police chief, James Craig, voiced support for the Second Amendment. “But I also support the fact that there is no place for open carry in close proximity to a polling location,” he said, adding that the department will be “out in mass,” though not at voting sites. “We will be in the area if there should be a problem.”

Yeah, they'll "be around"...meanwhile, you're getting your face shot off.


In a memo, Police Commissioner Dermot Shea said the department should “anticipate and prepare for protests growing in size, frequency, and intensity leading up to the election and likely into the year 2021.” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio on Friday announced the creation of an NYC Election Observer Corps — a group of volunteers outside polling sites that can direct voters to assistance hotlines and report any instance of voter intimidation, suppression or harassment.

Anyone want to bet that those people have their own agendas? This is going to be a circus. I'd cook up popcorn, but I'm trying to lose a a half dozen excess pounds this week.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 6:34 utc | 115

Heh, probably not a bad prediction:

Chris Hayes @chrislhayes
5h
We’ll probably have a 9/11’s worth of deaths between now and when polls close.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 6:36 utc | 116

OT..I just read this translation from a Russian link...most agreeable as a counterpoise to Exceptional Nation nuttiness:

"Construction of the industrial complex, where high-speed trains will be produced, began in the Urals. In five years, Russia will have a domestic rolling stock for the VSM - high-speed highways. Moreover, the level of localization of production is stated at 80%, which means additional orders for the Russian industry."

https://aftershock.news/ [Of course, cannot vouch for the datum]

Posted by: chu teh | Nov 1 2020 6:50 utc | 117

I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth certificate.

Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart. The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar and gladly.

As far as Obama's birth certificate, since his mom was a CIA officer using the Ford Foundation as cover during the murder of millions of leftists in Indonesia, I am sure she took time out to make sure he was born on US soil. All that stuff about him growing up on embassy row in Indonesia while the left was being slaughtered is carefully taken out of the story. Not his fault but it was quite a slaughter of humans and we know her employer was deeply involved. Going into the Indonesian villages to do studies. Really, studies and observations. They used to call it SOG groups.

Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I bet Harris is one as well.

I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.


Posted by: circumspect | Nov 1 2020 6:51 utc | 118

PS...and Pres. Pumpkin surely is stymied that there is no money available for US infrastructure.?.

Posted by: Chu Teh | Nov 1 2020 6:54 utc | 119

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 6:32 utc | 114

And thank you, I guess for also being civil. Shouldn't we all expect it if we're not both in the USA? (I'm in Catalonia, you're in UK)

I will say that I still think you're not quite getting the situation in the USA. The violence, looting, rioting etcetera wasn't planned or implemented by antifa or BLM. Not by any means. What happened in most cases was peaceful protesting (albeit blocking roads and hurting business, maybe even graffiti or molotov cocktails created for extreme situations (not denying maybe some planned on using them regardless)) UNTIL the cops got all military style and started firing mace, tear gas, and using bully tactics on peaceful crowds and THEN maybe some rioting, rock throwing, and otherwise violent behaviors broke out. Just look at every urban protest in the history of the US for examples/precedent. The blacks/left/hippies almost NEVER resort to violence as a first or even second or third resort. But the cops are just so militarized now. We can have a separate discussion on how this impacts local (minority owned) businesses at a later time.

THEN there's the right wing and anarchist infiltrators like "Umbrella Man" and the "Boogaloo Boys" who are actually charged with shooting at cops in Minneapolis and Oakland - in both cases when protests were still peaceful (but annoying to some) and another picture starts to emerge.

I'm telling you, not asking. The history in the United States has ALWAYS been white, conservative (whether that meant Democrat or Republican depending on the decade) intimidating voters, pushing back against vote counts, using radical legal theory and activist courts and judges to push through "conservative" candidates and back up conservative/corporate legislation.

At the end of the day (sorry I use that phrase a lot), I'm NOT advocating for Biden. But Trump's fans are really obnoxious. They do so proactively. Antifa and BLM do so REACTIVELY. If there is any intimidation or interference on Tuesday, it won't be the Democrat friendly factions or even the true left. It will be the American right. I hope b has the courage to cover it - he might lose a lot of the readership he's gained since midway through Obama's first term.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 1 2020 7:03 utc | 120

vk of that ilk ignores the issue. Since winning the prez beauty contest is only achieved by getting the most votes in the electoral college, that is what the trumpeters set out to do. They knew they stood no chance of winning the electoral college votes in places like california or new york so they didn't waste resources campaigning there. Consequently, wasserhername - clinton won big in those two states.

Surely that is the name of the game, winning the beauty contest by getting most electoral college votes, not winning the popular vote and losing the beauty contest?

If the rules were highest popular vote = winning beauty contest, orangeutan & the trumpeters would have campaigned differently and spent more time & effort in the big population states, but that isn't the rules, therefore the trumpists didn't pissfart about campaigning for the popular vote when the popular vote determines SFA.

These sour grape sounding whinges about the popular vote are meaningless, simply because there is no way of predicting what the outcome would have been if it had been the determinant. The rethugs would have run a different campaign and the popular vote would not have been the same as it was under electoral college rules. So these after the fact monday quarterback claims about what should have been, if only, are deceitful as well as being entirely irrelevant.

Prez by popular vote would have been different. I loathe trump as much as I loathe biden and clinton, but it isn't orange creep's fault hill the shill screwed the pooch & couldn't be arsed campaigning among the deplorables in flyover country - that fault lies entirely with shill the shrew and if the same thing happens to biden, that fault will be his. This isn't theory it is our shared reality where rule number one of succeeding must always be stay in the real world.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 121

I keep on reading this narrative that there is no difference between Trump and Biden and no matter who you vote for the blob wins. That the effort to unseat Trump and overturn the 2016 election results, to derail his 2020 campaign is all some elaborate game of 52D chess that we are too stupid to understand.

Here is my problem with that narrative.

The political scene in the US is split between two factions 1) the US globalists (Democrats/Establishment Republicans/Deep State/Big Tech/MSM/WallStreet) and on the other side 2) US Nationalists (Trump/the deplorables).

When Trump was campaigning in 2016 he made it clear that he intended to bring back the supply chain to the US. All those manufacturing jobs that were outsourced to third world countries to maximise the profits of the large corporations we’re going to be brought back and the way he intended on doing that was to exit free trade agreements that harmed US national interest and introduce protectionist policies (tariffs/ low corporate taxes etc) which would entice/induce/force manufacturers to open factories in the US again.

This horrified the globalists as they have for the past decades been implementing a controlled disintegration of the US

The great “liberalization” of world commerce began with a series of waves through the 1970s, and moved into high gear with the interest rate hikes of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in 1980-82, the effects of which both annihilated much of the small and medium sized entrepreneurs, opened the speculative gates into the “Savings and Loan” debacle and also helped cartelize mineral, food, and financial institutions into ever greater behemoths. Volcker himself described this process as the “controlled disintegration of the US economy” upon becoming Fed Chairman in 1978. The raising of interest rates to 20-21% not only shut down the life blood of much of the US economic base, but also threw the third world into greater debt slavery, as nations now had to pay usurious interest on US loans.

https://thesaker.is/what-the-great-reset-architects-dont-want-you-to-understand-about-economics/

What is the eventual end goal of the globalists ?

false solutions to a crisis of global proportions are being promoted in the form of a “Great Global Reset” which aims at creating a new economic order under the fog of COVID. This emerging “new order”, as it is being promoted by Mark Carney, George Soros, Bill Gates and other minions of the City of London is shaped by a devout commitment to depopulation, world government and master-slave systems of social control.

By attempting to tie the new system of “value” to economic practices which are designed to crush humanity’s ability to sustain itself in the form of “reducing carbon footprints”, “sustainable green energy”, cap and trade, carbon taxes and green infrastructure bonds, humanity is being set up to accept a system of governance onto our children and grandchildren which will subject them to a dystopic world of fascism the likes of which even Hitler could not have dreamed.


https://thesaker.is/one-last-chance-to-revive-americas-forgotten-constitutional-traditions-and-avoid-wwiii/

Exiting NAFTA, implementing protectionist measures, lowering corporate taxes, starting a trade war with China (that is where the majority of the outsourced jobs went) he is trying to undo the controlled disintegration of the US. That is why the globalists hate him so much.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122

The globalist "Great Reset" wants to overcome the diverse rising obstacles to globalism's perpetuation, especially the intensifying centrifugal political and economic forces which directly oppose it or which hinder it. The global elites see politics as such, and any mode of economy other than that which is strictly regimented and controlled by the US government, the oligopoly MNCs and a handful of globalization entities, as antiquated obstructions to its power and profit. From the point of view of the Earth and especially humanity it's essential to obstruct the globalist-technocratic elite as much as possible.

So it follows that anything which sustains and multiplies the number of obstacles any globalist actor has to traverse is a good thing, while anything that streamlines, unifies, renders more "efficient" is bad. This includes the character of US foreign policy. Although it will remain aggressively imperialist for as long as this government exists, it makes a significant difference how disciplined and superficially "kinder and gentler" the facade is, as opposed to how wayward, openly brutish and gratuitously insulting to everyone in the world. Real anti-globalists always have known this, and the need never has been more critical than now. From this point of view Trump is vastly preferable. The across-the-board hatred of the elites for him is the best recommendation.

Trump's election was a monkey-wrench in the works, and although the elites were able to make lemonade by turning anti-Trumpism into an organizing principle among the bewildered masses, they certainly want to return to having a reliable, fully pliant figurehead in the White House. With Biden/Harris they'd get the best of both worlds - they either get the obedient Biden or the even more aggressively obedient Harris who would be all the more controllable since she has no political support of her own and wouldn't have been elected even if Biden became president and then had to be retired.

So it follows that gratuitous US imperial belligerence is in fact being "creatively destructive", to use one of capitalism's own religious terms, in spite of the US empire's own long-run goals and interests. The worst thing would be for US foreign policy to become less Kaiser and more Bismarck. The more chaos the better. It may seem more painful in the short run than running home to hide under adult mama's skirts the way almost all former anti-imperialists, anti-globalists, "radicals", "leftists" have done, since they all were frauds all along who can't take the slightest pain or hardship and would rather die than do any movement-building work, but for the long run good of the Earth including humanity there's no other option.

Posted by: Russ | Nov 1 2020 7:53 utc | 123

@Don Bacon | Oct 31 2020 23:19 utc | 76

Obama actually surged 70,000 troops into Afghanistan, raising Bush's 30K to 100K+. That got Mr Hope & Change the Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama got the Nobel Prize in 2009, the year he became president. The deadline for nominations to the Nobel Committee is January 31 the same year. So either he did something extraordinarily good between his inauguration January ~20 and January 31, or the prize was awarded preemptively.

The Nobel Peace price committee resides in Oslo and consists of politically appointed members, that is from parties of the Norwegian parliament (Stortinget). The chairman at the time was Thorbjørn Jagland from the same Labour party as now chief NATO puppet Jens Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg and Jagland were supposed rivals to become Prime Minister in 1996 after Gro Harlem "We have other methods" Brundtland who became WHO director (Hmmm...?).

Jagland is famous for being an imbecile foreign minister. He was once interviewed and stated that Norway is a very important country in the world. His reasoning was that when flying around and meeting people, he always saw a large number of Norwegian flags. I kid you not.

Jagland is also famous for winning the battle against Jens Stoltenberg to become Prime Minister in 1996. He then resigned one year later after winning the election in 1997, because he had promised to resign if the labour party got fewer votes than 4 years earlier, i.e. 36.9%. So he is forever the idiot Thorbjørn "36.9" Jagland, who gave away the government position to the opposition after winning an election.

So this person was obviously qualified to become the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee, he had shown that he could be made to do anything, including awarding the Peace Prize preemptively to Obama and get his picture with Obama. Even Obama was embarrassed.

Posted by: Norwegian | Nov 1 2020 8:09 utc | 124

Norwegian | Nov 1 2020 8:09 utc | 131

"Obama got the Nobel Prize in 2009"

This was part of the propaganda to normalize permanent wars of imperial aggression as the new baseline for "peace".

Just part of the totalitarian "New Normal" the globalists led by the US government have been working toward.

Posted by: Russ | Nov 1 2020 8:23 utc | 125

@_K_C (120)

You appear to be painting a somewhat one-sided picture where all the violence is instigated by conservatives and the police. Please correct me if I am wrong but aren't most of the worst hit cities actually controlled by the Democrats? And don't some of those Democrat controlled cities have black mayors? (I know for a fact that at least two of them do) And I also know for a fact that one of them had a female black police chief. I vaguely remember reading about a situation where the feds were sent in but I also remember reading that the violence didn't stop when they were pulled out.

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 8:50 utc | 126

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122 he is trying to undo the controlled disintegration of the US. That is why the globalists hate him so much.

Bullcrap. Trump doesn't the brains - let alone the interest - to figure any of that out himself. So someone is using him, if in fact the goals of the globalists are as you say - which I doubt, once again because we have zero actual evidence.

I repeat - *no one* knows what the "end game" is - if there even is one. Whatever they tell you it is has to be a lie by definition. Whatever you think you know is almost certainly wrong because deception, obfuscation and manipulation is the name of the game. We can know what they really want - by definition - is money and power and to be in charge over the rest of us - because that's what humans *do*. It's called primate hierarchy, based on the fear of death, and it rules every human action. Beyond that, it's a waste of time trying to figure out who's doing what - unless you're in a position to do something about it.

Posted by: Russ | Nov 1 2020 7:53 utc | 130 The across-the-board hatred of the elites for him is the best recommendation.

Bullcrap. Trump doesn't hate the elites. He's such a narcissist, he considers himself to be one (even if they don't.) It doesn't take any "real evidence" to see that. The elites may have some concern that Trump is too *much* of a narcissist to be fully controllable, but they understand that he's easily manipulated into doing what they want done (whatever that actually is.)

All this Russiagate and impeachment crap ended up doing one thing: nothing but feeding the Democratic political machine and the mainstream media, and keeping the country divided. Trump is still standing virtually untouched. If you theorize on the basis of what actually happened, that's the end result of all the conspiracy theories: a big fat zero.

And the people in charge couldn't care less who the President is, because they have their hooks in every possible candidate. No one gets to be President without being a "team player" to one degree or another, ensured by one means or another.

And on top of that, the elites have the money and influence to override *anything* some overly narcissistic idiot thinks he "wants" to do. Obama talked about pulling troops out of Iraq in his campaign - are we still there? Yes, if not as many as when he took office. Hardly a ringing success. He talked about "finishing" the Afghan war and "taking the fight to the Taliban" in Pakistan. We're still in Afghanistan and the Taliban are both there and in Pakistan. Trump says we're pulling out, the Pentagon say, "No, we're not." So whatever Trump thinks he "wants", he's not going to get it.

Trump controls nothing. He understands nothing. He influences nothing. He's a figurehead, like every other President. The people who tried to impeach him were mostly the Democrats pushing the same political game the Republicans did when Bill Clinton was in office. It's a game - period. It literally does not matter who is the President and what he "wants". He does *not* run the country. He just makes himself believe he does, like every other fool who thinks he's in charge in this world.

In reality, the world is chaos. As The Joker said, "I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." People arguing over whether Trump is preferable to Biden are *way* behind the curve.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 8:51 utc | 127

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 8:50 utc | 133 don't some of those Democrat controlled cities have black mayors?

Not to interject myself into that discussion, but this caught my eye. What makes you think a Democratic mayor - or any mayor - controls the police in any given city? Even a black police chief can't control a force which is ninety percent white.

Just saw a tweet tonight that some of the protesters arrested in one of the riots recently was asked by the cops when they were arrested whether the rioters were being paid by George Soros. Cops in the US are ninety percent conservative, not to mention racist and fascist.

Police Magazine did a poll of their readers in 2016:


POLICE e-mailed a survey to 59,238 readers. A total of 3,652 working officers responded.

Out of that population of working officers who plan to vote in the November election, 84% say they support Donald Trump. Hillary was supported by 8%, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received 5%, and "other" received 3%. Write-in choices on the right included: Texas senator Ted Cruz, Florida governor Jeb Bush, anybody but Trump candidate Evan McMullin, and Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. On the left, write-ins included: Green Party candidate Jill Stein, climate change crusader and TV "science guy" Bill Nye, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. A number of respondents who selected other said "none of the above," and one may have summed up the feeling of many voters by simply stating, "Help, please."

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 8:58 utc | 128

@circumspect | Nov 1 2020 6:51 utc | 118

I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.

That makes a lot of sense!

Posted by: Norwegian | Nov 1 2020 9:11 utc | 129

What Would A Democratic Presidency Really Change?

Well for one thing you probably won't see any more of this sort of thing escape into the open media:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8901193/National-security-nightmare-Hunter-Bidens-laptop.html

Because the FBI's evidence cleaner/tamperer division's mandate will be greatly expanded, as will the powers of the Silicone Valley Tekkies to more comprehensively throttle public free speech on electronic media, that the deep state's Invisible Hand disapproves of.

Posted by: gm | Nov 1 2020 9:56 utc | 130

I knew there would be another 11th hour Hail Mary pass from Kremlin Central designed for the anti-war Left to hook us to the Trump camp without hardly a word on Trump's radically-right Zionist foreign policy that he already set in motion. Trump started, before he was sworn in as President, working Zionism into high gear risking sabotage against President Obama's U.N. resolution condemning Israel, and only escalated from there, so his 2nd term is going to be full tilt on Iran.

You know what this piece is? You know I don't mess around when it comes to the truth, so let me put it to you straight: This piece is total BULLSHIT. You and Escobar have totally exposed yourselves as Trump/Russia hacks.

Trump is gunning for WAR with Iran and he thought he'd have it when he did the unthinkable and murdered Soleimani, but the Iranians got his number and intentionally muted their response. They know Trump is DONE; so why fall into that trap? The Iranians cooled their jets in the short term for gains in the long term. They are not impulsive and immature like Trump and Pompeo. Despite your spin and bull about hawkish Republicans for Biden saying this and that in front of a Zionist crowd they need to win over with hawkish spin, they do not speak for the Biden campaign. Everyone from the Left to the Centre to Biden Republicans have ONE GOAL and all will say anything, hold their nose and walk on shards of glass to GET TRUMP OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. This is a case of The enemy of my enemy is my friend for this one goal, and mister, you can't fight that kind of determined stampede to the polls, so get out of the way!

Biden is set to restore the JCPOA and treaties and policies that Trump burned. Screw your Trump pitch intended to induce hysteria in the Left. You're a day late and a dollar short, cause the Left's verdict on Trump is already tabled: Trump is 👉FIRED! Get it?

It's over, done, so quit the last-minute CPR--your illusion flat-lined; accept reality. No more Putin's puppy or flying champagne corks!

My word, you're willing to stretch the truth and exaggerate over nothing. What the hell; only Zionists are nervous Nellie's over Biden at this time. Russia got more with Obama than it ever dreamed: an open naval port on the Black Sea! So stop fretting over nothing. Only rabid Zionists need to worry. That's not you...right?

Posted by: Circe | Nov 1 2020 11:22 utc | 131


Trump < about controlled demolition of the empire NemesisCalling @ 5.

B summarized the style differences very well. But failed to mention the greater problem. 3 votes at polls every four years is not democracy<= no American is in charge of any thing the USA does.

the layers in the global power stack (each nation state the same):
layer 1: global franchisor sets rules of play; establishes goals <=local nation state franchisees must obtain to remain in power.

Layer 2: oligarch <= national (wall street beneficiaries who use their wealth to conform national outcome consistent with global powers).

Layer 3: copyright y patent monopoly power constitute 90% of corporate Assets.

Layer 4: think tank and other private orgs

public<= layer 5: 527 elected government <= a tool to regulate members of public

Layer 6: Intergov Bureaucracies limit and direct elected power to global goals.

public<= layer 7: the 340,000,000 members of the media regulated public

layer 8: stop and go economic system control

layer 9: media controls info environment & public narrative (many techniques)

all layers but 5 and 7 are contained within an envelop of privately owned control freaks.

Election of president<=false flag. Purpose <= fund the private media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers.

Article II and amendment 12 clearly deny American people any say in who is to be the P and VP of the USA.

Agree with Nemesiscalling, since 1947, standing orders from Layer 1<= demo the American excellence; deny superior economic power to average Americans . standing orders <=homogenize the world and standardize its governance.

American lifestyle and quality of life is indifferent to who the media puts into the white house.

by c1ue @ 26 said it best "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." the method used by the public layers is reflected
here, it is called divide and conquer.

B reviewed the elements and factors that maintain the division of the masses..

Posted by: snake | Nov 1 2020 11:50 utc | 132

@Circe | Nov 1 2020 11:22 utc | 131

Biden is set to restore the JCPOA and treaties and policies that Trump burned.

The rest of the world knows that the US is not agreement capable, it does not matter for Iran one bit what happens on Novemer 3rd.

Posted by: Norwegian | Nov 1 2020 11:53 utc | 133

Written two days ago...

What is there to know 100 hours before the elections?

1. National surveys. According to the average RCP polls, Joe Biden has 51.1% national vote intention, compared to 43.6% for Donald Trump. They are 7.5 points of advantage. (..)

2. Surveys in swing states. They are the ones that matter. (..) Knowing if Biden can take these states from him would allow us to know if, too, he will achieve the presidency in 2020. For now, it seems so. (..)

3. The 270 electoral votes. 270 is the magic number to achieve a majority. According to Cook Political's analysis of polls, as of October 28, Democrats would have already secured 290 electoral votes. 188 of them are certain (...) 24 of them are almost certain (...) and 78 of them are probable (...) To achieve victory, Trump would need to win all 123 votes of the tied states (all! ) and 22 of those who are likely to vote for Biden.

4. The Rust Belt might not be Trump's lifeline this time around. (...) Today, those Trump promises can be seen as unfulfilled by many 2016 Republican voters. Therefore, such a change in demands opens an uncertain scenario.

5. The difference with Hillary Clinton. (...) in 2016 Clinton had a 3 point advantage with 11% undecided. In 2020 Biden has a 9 point lead with only 3% undecided. Biden's strength - in polls - is greater, but that means nothing in such a polarized and changing environment, where minority participation is key for Biden to secure his numbers. If they don't mobilize, as happened to Clinton in 2016, it doesn't matter what the numbers say.

6. Are they better or worse? (...) a Gallup poll less than a month ago asked Ronald Reagan's famous question: "Would you say you and your family are better now than four years ago, or are you worse now?" A whopping 56 percent said yes, they are better now (...) It remains to be seen how much importance voters give to the economic issue, compared to other issues, such as the health crisis, the ways of the president or any other issue that can make decide the vote.

7. Electoral spending. So far, the electoral process is the most expensive in the history of the country with 11,000 million dollars used, mainly, in campaign events and advertisements, 40% more than what was spent in the 2016 elections (...) According to Open Secrets, adding the Trump Make America Great Again Committee and Donald J Trump for President, Trump's campaign has spent $ 219 million on online advertising, for $ 145 million from Biden for President and the Biden Victory Fund. In the last fifteen days, they have invested 33 and 25 million online, respectively.

8. Voting in advance. The numbers are staggering. 60 million people had already voted as of Sunday, October 25. That's already more than the 47.2 million votes anticipated in the 2016 election. (..) Polls indicate that Democrats are previously voting the most, so the Republican vote will need to rebound in polling stations during election day. By age, younger voters (ages 18-29) are also casting significantly more votes and represent a higher proportion of votes leading up to Election Day than at the same time, four years ago, in all key states with available information.

9. The importance. According to Gallup, a record percentage of American voters say that the outcome of this year's election matters more to them than the previous election. 77% of registered voters think so, which means that they are six percentage points more than in 2016 and that it is the highest figure ever (...) Giving it importance would mean, a priori, that more people will participate. If you also take into account another of the Gallup results, 56% of registered voters believe that Trump does not deserve to be re-elected, the president may have a problem.

10. Roll the dice. In 2016, and as I indicated in the book Six stories that explain the victory of Donald Trump, Kiko Llaneras said that Trump had a 10% probability of winning, but that that is the same chance of achieving a double six by throwing two dice, or that Barça lose a game. It is unlikely, but it can happen. At Fivethirtyeight they now make a similar forecast. They give the current president an 11% chance. It's very little. Almost as much as it rains in downtown Los Angeles one day. Although, in fact, and as they explain, it rains there about 36 days a year.


Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 11:55 utc | 134

@130 Russ

From this point of view Trump is vastly preferable.

Russ wants war with Iran.

I have yet to see more cunning tripe than the rest of your comment. You should be hired by the Hasbara Squad.

@133 MarkU

You appear to be painting a somewhat one-sided picture...And don't some of those Democrat controlled cities have black mayors? (I know for a fact that at least two of them do) And I also know for a fact that one of them had a female black police chief.

Uh...so what if black people are in charge? Have you a latent black problem, much?

People arguing over whether Trump is preferable to Biden are *way* behind the curve.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 8:51 utc | 134

Trump is a Zionist AND a Fascist and he already pulled several acts of war against Iran. War is part of the Trump agenda as is legitimizing Apartheid against the Palestinians provoking Intifada and domestically it's cops should shoot first ask questions later, and he's killing healthcare for millions by a hundred stabs, ergo, and just like with his whut pandemic? agenda, Trump really means: seniors, people with health conditions, poor people...do us a favor, just die already!

So it might be a discussion for some on Trump vs Biden, but for me there's no question. Just Vote the WAR and DEATH monger, Ziofascist, supremacist Trump out!

And that's why this article is so offensive.

Posted by: Circe | Nov 1 2020 12:44 utc | 135

RSH -

It gets really boring reading all these posts where people seem to think they have everything figured out, when actually, as you point out, they don't have any actual knowledge at all.

At best they have some second hand heresay along with some assertions and rationalizations and they have fooled themselves into believing they know something.

It is only possible to know something that you have directly observed, and even that is a superficial knowledge, as your own observation is tinged by your feelings, perceptions, and habitual reactions. One would also need to factor in the fact that it is impossible to know what is happening in another persons head, ie what their true motivations and intentions are.

Only with deep reflection, ie meditation, is it possible to even gain knowledge through direct observation.

My life became much less stressful when I came to this realization and began living with this "truth". Life is so much easier when one begins to understand what they actually 'know', and then acts based upon that 'knowledge'.

Some might call that a reality based experience.

OT - I was very surprised at your take on greenwald, I would have thought you would have been one of the first to have caught on to him. Eh, to each his own.

Posted by: visak | Nov 1 2020 12:48 utc | 136

On the absence of a real left in the US ( is all right and more right..)and of a real program which could include real changes that could make any difference in people´s lives, on that what matters is political technolgy and communication based on demonizing the other candidate which translates in deep polarizing of societies with unexpected unknown consequences..

"Whoever wins, it will take a long time"

"If Trump were re-elected for another four years, it would be a real calamity and armed conflicts could even break out by the most radical groups, so that the country could be paralyzed"

"The ideological profile and policy of the United States is that of the president and, each one, even if they are from the same party, has maintained quite different political lines throughout history", says Rafael García, professor of International Relations at the USC. For this reason, he affirms that, in North America, "there is no strong party structure, but rather that the party acts as an electoral structure and it is on the candidates of each moment that certain policies are formed."

DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS. So much so that, as the professor explains, "the ideological configuration of the parties in the 20th century changed radically". On the one hand, he alludes to the fact that the Democrat, “in historical terms, was the party of the southern states, when they faced each other in the Civil War; racist states, which lasted until the 1920s ”. Precisely, the political scientist indicates that "it was shortly before when the change took place, with the Roosevelt presidency, that he decided to change the configuration of the Democratic party as a result of the crisis of 29".

On the other hand, the Republican party, he points out, “was that of the union, that of the northern states, championed by Lincoln; the abolitionist party and that of the blacks ”. So how did these changes come about until today? Rafael García points to "a consequence of the political strategies that the presidents embodied at all times, not because there was an ideological line behind each party."

TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE AMERICAN MODEL TO THE EUROPEAN. For Rafael García, the Spaniards, when speaking of US politics, "make a mistake in translating our political structures" to those there. In other words, "in Europe the duality between left and right is widely assumed and we unconsciously transfer it to US policy." "That is a complete error", sentence.

And it is that there "there is neither right nor left, there is right and more right", affirms the professor. Which means that there does not exist and did not exist a historical labor-union party as such. In fact, the transmutation that is usually made from the democratic party to ‘social democratic’ is not correct. For García, Biden embodies "a more moderate man than the crazy Trump, but that does not mean that he has some kind of relationship with a left-wing thought."

RIGHT AND RIGHT. "A multimillionaire gentleman, absolute representative of the establishment" (referring to Biden), and "a traditional gentleman, more conservative" (referring to Trump) ". "Although Biden is a Democrat, who perhaps holds stronger principles and is hopeful, identifying him with the left is still a long way from reality," he says. Therefore, it is denied that the Democrats are the American left and the Republicans the right.

THE CAMPAIGN LACKS PROGRAMMATIC INTEREST. For the USC political scientist, the US electoral campaign lacks interest: "It is absurd, it seems like a disqualification competition in which a political or government program is not exposed." And every time Spain is also getting closer to that model of disputes.

"We are Americanized, in the sense that the weight of the parties is also being diluted in Spain in favor of the candidatesThese advisers are responsible for the growing division that is taking place in Western society," he says.

THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL ADVISORS. In Rafael García's opinion, the decision margin "is shrinking", that is, "the autonomy capacity of governments to make decisions is smaller, and they are conditioned". So, what is the difference, in practice, in management, between PP and PSOE? "Little thing, in the end, little thing," he asserts.

That is why "that little thing can not be said to the voter, but must be mobilized with a degree of identification, unconditional adherence, so that it can be recognized in a brand." And what is this transformation of Spanish politics due to? The professor is clear about it: "It is a translation of commercial marketing techniques to politics." Thus, a marketing advisor must "build customer loyalty" and a political advisor should build voter loyalty.

Now, if there are no significant differences between the two options, how to achieve it? "Through a demonization of the opposite and the creation of a hostility that is dangerous, because the divisions to which society is returning are irreconcilable." In this way, García believes that “it is the work of political advisers who, apart from the difficulties that exist in societies, which are many, polarize them when it comes to building and mobilizing a faithful electorate, to the point that they make no difference what the party says or what the leader says”.

In the United States, as evidenced by this expert, "it does not matter if Trump does the atrocities he does, or if he said in the previous campaign that he could murder a person on Fifth Avenue in New York without anything happening to him." This, transferred to the Spanish sphere, "assumes that the party can do any outrage: fraud, embezzlement, illegal financing ...". "That is something we are seeing, whatever party it is, but for the faithful voter it does not matter, because their party will continue to be so and will continue to listen to the channel and read the newspaper that supports it," he says.

THE ELECTORAL RESULT WILL BE EXTENDED OVER TIME. "I have no idea nor do I want to make forecasts, but I consider that Trump is a calamity and that if he were there for four more years it would be an absolute calamity", says Professor García. However, “there is a state of opinion that fears that the result of these elections will be complicated and that there will be challenges, so that the end result will be a diabolical process of recount, county-by-county challenges, repetitions in certain districts. .. a real madness that can last several months", he warns, something that,"with this polarization trail, it is not known how it could end."

I am referring to the outbreak of armed conflicts; These people have weapons, radical groups, some of them crazy and who can shoot themselves in a demonstration, doing outrages as part of the institutional paralysis in which the country can be plunged”, he asserts.

This is how people, like those at SST, who lied about the real difference amongst Democrats and Republicans in real effective changes of policy, shouting to the four winds that "the Communists are coming", when they are not, and this way spread hatred and division amongst the US society as if there was no tomorrow so that to conserve their "tax cut", could end witnessing the total destruction of the US, not only as "Empire" ( a process already in march before Corona-fear and 2020 electoral process, a construct of decades of lying the electorate for the greed of a minority...), but also as a nation state. All these people who, holding privileged insider knowledege of the funtioning of the state as former insiders, should be held accountable for their willing and conscious participation in the build up of the social and economic disastaer to come....

Forecast at the end of the article posted and quoted above:

The future: Institutional paralysis

··· An institutional paralysis like the one that can come after 3-N “could already occur in 2000, in the elections between George Bush Jr. and Al Gore, but the latter accepted the results even though they were open to challenge, and that it avoided institutional collapse".

··· However, “now it does not seem that either of the two candidates is going to have a gesture of these characteristics, with which, if doubts already appear, it will not only be in the State, but the final collapse may be extremely long and with unimaginable consequences ”, indicates Professor García. "It seems to me that the United States has a terrible situation ahead", he sentenced.


Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 12:49 utc | 137

A scene of Game of Thrones which could sumarize 2020 US election campaign, that it was based on throwing dirty to each other....But who has the real "power", not the "government"?:

https://twitter.com/IvanRedondo__/status/1322190858427502594

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 13:06 utc | 138

The Blob, the Borg, the Deep State, or whatever you want to call it, never left, largely because Trump was unable to effectively fight it.

No, a second Trump term, if it were to happen, would be no better, because Trump will still be Trump. Weak, stupid and easily manipulated.

Posted by: Feral Finster | Nov 1 2020 14:09 utc | 139

Have you noticed how they, at SST ( and all those pushing for Trump campaign for that matter...) try to demonize any woman who tries running for the higuest echelons of government ( not real power )?

This is made, not only because they are retrograde far-right machists, and even mysoginist, but also to spread squid ink over the reality who shows old men, like them, holding the strings of candidates and presidents, the real power behind the scenes, those "Frank Underwood" of Us politics, those who are not subject to election...( I would not discard any of these old men funding the mentioned blog...)

Although five years old, of total current relevancy, since the tentacles of thses "Frank Underwood" extend to this very days:

The real-life Frank Underwood

As illustration...for those who have not watched House of Cards ever...

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

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 14:18 utc | 140

@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122

I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it.

The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work. The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now, unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era.

The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction.

Trump's ideology will destroy the American Empire. It will collapse under a wave of hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, shortage of goods and collapsing economic output.

Posted by: vk | Nov 1 2020 14:20 utc | 141

@Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 13:06 utc | 138

Wrong link, sorry ( this was another I was going to post about, but ended not doing it..)

This is the scene of Game of Thrones which sumarize this 2020 campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab6GyR_5N6c

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 14:27 utc | 142

@140 h schmtz

You are full of shit.

Back in the dem primaries, SST, including Pat Lang all threw their weight behind Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii.

Right-wingers would not mind a female executive.

They just have to be those that embrace their femininity, utilize the better aspects of it, and reject the obvious inclination to simply imitate men, as Hillary and this Kamala surely exhibit.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Nov 1 2020 14:39 utc | 143

Advance FL voting #s are SERIOUS BAD NEWS for the Blue team.
Joe just might be done before it even starts. :)
https://joeisdone.github.io/florida/

Posted by: JoeG | Nov 1 2020 14:52 utc | 144

Somebody---Debsisdead?---pretended Trump played the Electoral College game better, which is Trumpery. Trump fluked out. Trump is not a stable genius and only fools drunk on his dingleberry wine can believe anything else.

The notion the Electoral College means the loser can legally take office does not, not, not mean they won the vote. It does not, not, not mean that losers get to crow about how hated the winner of the vote was. It does not, not, not mean that objecting to the folly of a law that permits the loser to take office means the losers can honestly dismiss the objections as partisanship. Again, the notion that notion that the letter of the law is morality is an abomination. Every tyrant in history has preferred to commit iniquities under color of law. Political conservativism is obedience to the powerful, nothing else.

The news media are split, some against Trump and some, especially the shadier, more dishonest news media, are vehemently pro-Trump. Claims of "the" media being against Trump are the lie direct, shameless and untouched by reality. The news media was against Clinton in 2016 and against Sanders even more, blacking him out. Most of all, the news media don't want ratings, they want advertisers. If rich people, the owners of the country, the elite, the establishment, all those things people pretend Trump is against, were against Trump they wouldn't buy advertising in the pro-Trump media. They wouldn't buy advertising in media that was pro-Sanders, much less anyone to the left of him (not hard to be, by the way.) They will pretend it's about the ratings but puffing Sanders would have puffed ratings too, which proves they're making excuses to hide their pro-Trump tendency.

The ludicrous claim Trump is an economic nationalist surfaces yet again. Lowering corporate income taxes has nothing whatsoever to do with rebuilding US industry and it is a lie to claim this. Supporting the stock market is the opposite of supporting re-industrialization and that's what Trump does. Indeed, Trump thinks the stock market is all that matters economically, to judge from his verbal obsessions. Building infrastructure is re=industrialization but Trump has done nothing on this. Higher wages could help re-industrialization by increasing domestic market but Trump opposes higher wages. Increased military spending is wasteful, diverting funds from infrastructure, but Trump has wasted more money than any other president this century. Every single person claiming Trump as an economic nationalist is a liar.

The one who is trying to undermine the election process, especially to undermine its claim to legitimacy, is the one trying to cheat, to follow the color revolution playbook. That one is Trump. There is no Deep State at all, there is only the state, the arena of class struggle. All Deep State "theories" are paranoia masquerading as thought, a fundamentally reactionary attempt to reduce the world to Good vs. Evil, rather than acknowledge the class nature of the state, because once you start down that road, before you know it, you have to start taking Marxism seriously.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Nov 1 2020 14:57 utc | 145

President Trump pulling over 15% Hispanic early votes in NC.
:)
https://joeisdone.github.io/northcarolina/

Posted by: JoeG | Nov 1 2020 14:59 utc | 146

@Posted by: NemesisCalling | Nov 1 2020 14:39 utc | 143

Full of shit will be you...

Pat lang, and SST, as US former government insiders, threw only A BIT of weight, and pennies, behind Tulsi Gabbard, to convey their real support for The Donald at the worst times of Trump´s presidency, that is when he ordered Soleimani sumary execution and appeared as the warmonger ( or front page of warmongers which to the effects is exactly the same...)he really is. A distraction maneuver to not appear so despicable supporting such a personage against all odds...
The same that happens with the usual pro-Trump blogs like The Saker, btw, which, in the final meters of the race support Trump as if there was no tomorrow on the most peregrine alibi..

They knew very well that a woman like her, so motherly and quiet, would be eliminated by the "deep state", "The Borg" in their words...

P.S: Btw, by your rude tone I noticed I probably hit some nerve in the pro-Trump camp ( incredible when what I am doing is debunking the whole electoral charade...but, well, must be the delusional people´s buble which I have just bursted...)
Do not think I am going to start a fight with you here so as to have me banned. It´s sunny, there is a curfew in some hours, and after all i have already posted what of important i have to say about this election, coming in few hours...

You shpould do the same, go to walk a bit, and catch some sun to calm down ( did you know that most Covid-19 patients show Vitamine D deficit?....).
Enjoy the afternoon, if you can.

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 15:00 utc | 147

Let the wailing and gnashing begin!
Four more years!
:)

Posted by: JoeG | Nov 1 2020 15:00 utc | 148

@uncle tungsten #94
You said:

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. :))

To be 100% clear: I don't consider either of the mainstream Democrat or Republican parties to be representative of anything except oligarch interests.

At the same time, I also believe that the majority of American people are busy working, raising families, and otherwise living as opposed to spending the considerable amount of time and effort to figure out just how they are being screwed.
But they can see what is shoved into their faces. The cumulative effects of 40 years of bipartisan oligarch machinations is tangible in the flat wages for American men for the last 25 years; it is tangible in the sad state of American infrastructure; it is tangible in the $2 trillion plus in additional medical costs being paid by Americans every year; it is tangible in the tens of thousands of wounded and killed Americans and trillions of spending in foreign adventures; and it is tangible in the tens of millions of jobs that were outsourced, without a modicum of a fight, abroad. There are many other issues but these are the biggest ones in my view.
Nonetheless, so long as the vast majority of Americans are decent people - I don't see a collapse of American civilization coming.
I do see a collapse of power structures - Trump is proof of that
Biden is the Empire striking back - and the Empire is the American oligarchy, both bureaucrat and billionaire; both state and federal political machines; both Reagan neocon Republican and Clinton Democrat.

Ultimately, I believe Trump was a better choice than HRC because he addressed several of these major issues. I had no expectation that he would fix all or even any of them but that bringing these issues to the fore has value in raising consciousness.

If I look at Biden - which of these major issues is he addressing? Literally none of them. If Biden had supported Medicare For All - it would be at least a counterpoint to Trump's vocal and visible campaign against China's economic actions.

As it is, identitarian nonsense and Green New Deal posturing is simply irrelevant.

The billions Biden is spending to push the COVID message and to obstruct Americans understanding of the above key issues may work; we will see.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 15:05 utc | 149

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 8:58 utc | 128

That still doesn't absolve the mayor's of these cities. As the chief executives of these cities they are responsible for the police force. It it is made up of mostly white right wing men then it is the fault of the city's major to diversify his/her's police force. It is a failure of leadership.

Posted by: Quiet Rebel | Nov 1 2020 15:10 utc | 150

vk @ 141

The manufacturing sector saw 17,000 jobs added after four months of flat activity. This followed a strong run of an average of 22,000 manufacturing jobs added every month in 2018 and 15,800 per month in 2017. Those gains followed two weak years that saw 7,000 manufacturing jobs lost in 2016 and only 5,800 per month added in 2015.

In the last 30 months of President Obama’s term, manufacturing employment grew by 185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump’s first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs, expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than under Obama, a 170% advantage


https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/www.forbes.com/v/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/07/10/in-trumps-first-30-months-manufacturing-up-by-314000-jobs-over-obama-what-states-are-hot/amp/%3famp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%253D#ampf=
He’s doing a really great job of de-industrialising the US.

I’m not including current figures because of the economic impact of COVID.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 15:11 utc | 151

@vk #99
You continue to spout irrelevant nonsense.
I can do the same: 95% of the US by land area voted for Trump in 2016.
This is just as irrelevant as popular votes - because neither is the actual legal criteria for being voted President.
I can also cite gun ownership; 2nd or greater generation citizens; farmers - whatever. These are also utterly irrelevant.
Continuing to brandish a Democrat talking point isn't helpful if said point doesn't actually have any legal basis.
Nor is this legal basis fixed by fiat. There is a tried and true mechanism for changing the law.
Alcohol is a great example. The Eighteenth amendment was proposed in 1917 to ban alcohol; it was a symbol for Protestants against what they (correctly) saw as a wave of hedonism sweeping the country. It was successfully amended into the Constitution in 1919 and followed by a Congressional law (the Volstead act) in 1920.

But it proved unpopular enough that it was repealed by the 21st Amendment - proposed in February 1933 and passed in December 1933.

Amendments thus can and have been proposed and passed in a single year - if they are, in fact, popular enough.

If enough Americans want to go majoritarian demos - then amend the Constitution.

Until then, all I hear is yapping.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 15:14 utc | 152

As Grieved said so well upstream, we can either listen to the barking dogs or watch the caravan (which is headed south, BTW). Then take the appropriate actions to limit expenses and increase savings, among others.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2020 15:18 utc | 153

Amendments thus can and have been proposed and passed in a single year - if they are, in fact, popular enough.

If enough Americans want to go majoritarian demos - then amend the Constitution.

Until then, all I hear is yapping.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 15:14 utc | 152

I agree with you on this. If the Democrats wanted to go majoritarian demos they should had push for a constitutional amendment to do so instead of wasting all of their political capital on that Russiangate garbage.

Posted by: Quiet Rebel | Nov 1 2020 15:20 utc | 154

visak @Nov1 12:48 #136

It gets really boring reading all these posts where people seem to think they have everything figured out, when actually, as you point out, they don't have any actual knowledge at all.

RSH didn't say "they don't have any knowledge at all". He said it can't be predicted.

IMO Deep State motivations are fairly clear and understandable. And with that as a starting point we can make reasonable predictions - the accuracy of which improves over time because when you're wrong you learn something about how they think about the world.

=
At best they have some second hand heresay along with some assertions and rationalizations and they have fooled themselves into believing they know something.

You go too far here: "fooled themselves into believing they know something." In fact, there are generally agreed and accepted truths, generally ignored/elided by MSM propaganda, which form the basis of intelligent theorizing. Such as the Illusion of Democracy and Thucydides Trap.

=
It is only possible to know something that you have directly observed, and even that is a superficial knowledge, as your own observation is tinged by your feelings, perceptions, and habitual reactions. One would also need to factor in the fact that it is impossible to know what is happening in another persons head, ie what their true motivations and intentions are.

This is gobbledygook, anti-intellectualism.

=
Only with deep reflection, ie meditation, is it possible to even gain knowledge through direct observation.

Some of us have done that "deep reflection" (meditative but not meditation) accompanied by a good historical knowledge. Shouldn't the thoughts of such people be given due consideration?

=
My life became much less stressful when I came to this realization and began living with this "truth". Life is so much easier when one begins to understand what they actually 'know', and then acts based upon that 'knowledge'.

Few of us have ever seen an electron but our lives are "much easier" knowing that they exist.

=
Some might call that a reality based experience.

Some might call your view an establishment-serving narrative. It's unknowable! is just as defeating as: I can't change anything so why should I pay attention?; elites are fractured! - the notion of decentralized power is supposed to be comforting but there's no reason to believe that power is not centralized behind the scenes; or even Divine Right / Manifest Destiny / exceptionalism or other such formulation that justifies malfeasance and undermines critics of that malfeasance.

=
OT - I was very surprised at your take on greenwald, I would have thought you would have been one of the first to have caught on to him. Eh, to each his own.

Taibbi, gg, and others have done good work but are revielled when they ignore certain things and/or go along with false narratives. Taibbi was involved in the cover-up of Russiagate in August when he interviewed a supposed whistle-blower that was trying to spin a narrative that pins the whole thing on a certain actor. gg studiously ignores the failure of Democrats to provide any real "resistance" to Trump and the numerous 'October surprises' that we have been subject to just before the 2020 election.

And now we have Pepe with pro-Trump pearl-clutching which comes a couple of weeks after his anti-China/pro-Empire writing.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 1 2020 15:21 utc | 155

@Down South #122
Indeed. In #148 - I speak to what I see as the major issues facing Americans today.
My support for Trump is entirely based on his addressing some of them vs. HRC and now Biden addressing none of them.

Nor did Obama address any of them. While Obamacare addressed a few particularly egregious health insurance industry practices - it did nothing to fix the actual problem and in reality, made it worse.
Instead of a festering sore that could be fixed with a national health care program (*NOT* national health insurance), what Obamacare did was curb a couple of the worst excesses, throw 20 million of the poorest Americans into the paying health insurance company pool at the expense of the remainder - and do absolutely nothing to curb increasing health care costs and unaffordability.
The latter is the biggest problem.
Trump wants to repeal ObamaCare - likely for vindictive reasons - but I don't care why he does it.
What is 100% clear is that Trump is not a finger puppet of the pharma and health insurance industries - and that matters.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 15:22 utc | 156

Trump is like the reknown fascists of yore, if there were no pandemic happening that Trump could deny, that's killing hundreds of thousands of mostly seniors, blacks, latinos and people with pre-existing conditions, and after fully rigging the legal system, I see little difference, if he were to, say, lure the vulnerable with this scheme: Come this way all you nice, use...ful?people; come into my beautiful Soylent Green chamber...it will cure all that ails you, I promise you! (🤫 cause we must maintain my greatest achievement, the economy, for the strong white working class, fit, beautiful people like Ivanka, my rich patrons on Wall Street and of course, protect my glorious legacy...he-he 😈)

Trump is a dangerous, cynical narcissist, and power-driven mthrfkr.

Losing only the Presidency is way too kind.

Melania defined their insulated depraved indifference perfectly: I don't care do U? She's the Marie Antoinette of American politics once in a while role playing the sensitive edge to soften the real privileged side with fawning dupes.

Nip the Trump political dynasty in the rosebud and send them packing back to their Florida Xanadu!

******
@143 NemesisCalling

They just have to be those that embrace their femininity, utilize the better aspects of it

I ain't a fan of Hillary's or Kamala's centrist policies, but I hate to break it to you, strong, intelligent, successful women don't look like Barbie or act like the Stepford wife of the 50s, and I know Tulsi would agree, and as far as demeanour, not politics, she's similar to Kamala although I prefer Tulsi's brighter style, and FYI, Tulsi dropped out and immediately supported Biden over Sanders.

Posted by: Circe | Nov 1 2020 15:24 utc | 157

@ Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 15:14 utc | 152

I'm speaking in liberal terms. If you're a liberal, then you shouldn't oppose the principle that the candidate with the most votes could lose. I'm not a liberal, therefore I don't care about these details. But most of the commenters here are liberals, so my argument is that, according to your own ideology, you shouldn't support Trump, as he's going to lose the popular vote.

Democracy never was about land, but about people. Early liberals of the 16th-19th Century defended the idea only slave-owners (i.e. landowners) should have the right to vote, but, once on the ballot, it was one person, one vote. They never preached for the bigger slave-owner to have more votes than the smaller slave-owner; you don't get votes per hectare - that's completely alien even to the earliest forms of liberalism (including, of course, the form of liberalism the founding fathers defended).

The rest of the world doesn't give a fuck to American political system. There are only three things the rest of the world fear from the USA: 1) nuclear arsenal, 2) Navy and 3) Dollar Standard (control of the financial system). The question the average American must ask to himself is this: which things I must do to keep those three things as strong as ever? The rest is capitalist utopia.

--//--

@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 15:11 utc | 151

From 2019:

U.S. Manufacturing Shrinks for First Time in 3 Years – the Latest Economic Warning Sign

Most important, though is manufacturing participation on GDP growth, which is falling sharply.

As for the trade deficits:

U.S. trade deficit jumps to largest in 14 years in August [2020]

The Commerce Department said on Tuesday the trade deficit jumped 5.9% to $67.1 billion, the widest since August 2006.

You don't need to trust me. But, as a good, demure American citizen, I think you trust your Commerce Department.


Posted by: vk | Nov 1 2020 15:43 utc | 158

c1ue @ 156

It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of money.

Obamacare may have been a mixed blessing for those seeking coverage through the state exchanges, some of which have seen double-digit annual premium hikes, but it’s been a clear boon for the nation’s hospitals.

Multiple studies have linked the ACA’s coverage expansion to improved financial performance, with one analysis finding that hospitals’ profit margins went up by 25 percent in states that expanded Medicaid in 2014. Overall, the industry boasted an 8.3 percent profit margin that year, according to the most recent figures published by the American Hospital Association. That’s the highest performance on record — more than triple the industry’s 2.6 percent profit margin in 2008, amid the recession and before the Obama administration began pushing its health care reforms — and it’s only invited scrutiny from advocates and researchers who say that it’s a sign the system is broken.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obamacare-non-profit-hospital-taxes/

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 15:44 utc | 159

One more thing about SST supporting Tulsi in the primaries. It's one thing to support someone in the primaries and then follow through to the general election and to the ballot box at the expense of Trump!

If Tulsi stood any chance and polled like Sanders I would have wanted her to win the nomination only to expose Trump for what he's ABSOLUTELY NOT--A NON-INTERVENTIONIST!

Posted by: Circe | Nov 1 2020 15:48 utc | 160

@ 6
" No matter what Obama thinks, the inauguration will sever all puppet strings. "

We don't know the extent of the types of pressures Obama can bring on Biden. or any other Dem, to get what he wants. So far, Obama has been Teflonesque when it comes to damaging info on him. In fact, the most damaging info---his public record as an elected politician---doesn't seem to damage him, either.

Posted by: Jane | Nov 1 2020 15:55 utc | 161

As Trump is going to win (provided the usual conditions pertain, fraud is not over the normal levels, and the whole sh*t-story doesn’t end up in the courts or fought out on the streets, whereupon no reasoned predictions can be made), speculation about Biden as Prez. is a waste of time.

The last part of the Pepe piece in b’s post, which gives reasons to not vote Biden, my take.:

Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab. Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will continue, the status quo is preserved..)

Anyway, the ACA was a damp squib, it didn’t solve anything, and depending on pov was in effect a gift to Mega Insurance or was just ‘lame’ or as often, ‘favored some over others’ etc.

Then the Financial Crisis hit. The Obama admin. didn’t prevent it (one might argue they couldn’t … not sure) and it didn’t ‘repair’ as far as the ppl were concerned. Banks and Some Big Cos were bailed out - millions of homeowners were tossed to the curb by Banks. Child poverty, hunger, increased; wages weren’t upped, health stats got worse… No need to go on - this provoked tremendous anger. The 2010 elections saw big R gains, 2014 they took the Senate, iirc.

(Who cared about foreign parts like Ukraine, Syria? is what I’m saying.)

That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident, clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason.

DT’s electoral promises were both opportunistic and more profound: like fire-brand preachers of old, Build The Wall - MAGA - i.e. pledging a return to the past (see, again the opposite of Barry, who hoped for the future) — Stop the wars, undo past mistakes (Dems don’t run on anti-war..!), and, most important:

Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them.

Imho, Trump’s record (null or abysmal or whatever depending on pov) is not enough for rejecting him in favor of loathed “failed” policies of the past - Clinton gang, Biden a part of it, Obama, etc. (By US voters I mean.)

but see Kiza 8, gottlieb 63, dave 72, Jack, others, >> no difference.



Posted by: Noirette | Nov 1 2020 15:55 utc | 162

vk @ 158

But, as a good, demure American citizen

Thanks for the laugh I really appreciate it.

Bringing the supply chain back to the US and re-industrialising the US isn’t going to happen overnight or even in a couple of quarters. Just like the process to de-industrialise didn’t happen overnight. But that the process has started, it is undeniable, and will only pick up pace when he wins a second term.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 15:59 utc | 163

Poll update:
Nov 1 update Trafalgar vs. MSM vs. 2016

4 new Trafalgar polls came out for 10/29: Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Michigan.

Trump expanded his lead on Biden in Florida and Michigan vs. Trafalgar's earlier October polls:
FL from +2.3% Trump to +2.7%
MI from +0.6% Trump to +2.5%

Trump did worse in Nevada and AZ:
AZ from +4% Trump to +2.5%.

Nevada polled +2.3% Biden

Once again: the question is if Trump outperforms vs. MSM polls.
If he repeats anywhere near his 2016 - he will win.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 16:01 utc | 164

Trump can only win again if the establishment/deep state is once again exceptionally overconfident and asleep in the control room. They have numerous ways of swinging the election at the last hour, from pre-hacked Diebold paperless voting machines to hanging chads to simply having their operatives scattered around the nation throw ballots away and fabricate the tallies. Oddly enough this extreme carelessness is still possible. The establishment/deep state have not yet come to terms with what caused their plans to blow up in 2016 and really do seriously believe that Russia had something to do with it, even though they have no idea what Russia might have actually done to wreck their expected electoral blowout by Clinton. They also think that part of the problem was that Trump wasn't vilified harshly enough (they wanted the election to at least appear competitive), and they think they have that covered this time around. It could be that the over-the-top hysteria from the TDS victims has them overestimating the anti-Trump sentiment, though.

Still, the establishment/deep state screwing up exactly the same way twice in a row doesn't seem likely. Even so, their profound incompetence continues to astonish, so maybe we will once again get treated to the delightful spectacle of crowds of middle class faux left dilettante snowflakes melting down.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 16:06 utc | 165

@ Down South #159
It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of money.
My health stock investment has almost doubled during Trump's tenure.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 1 2020 16:14 utc | 166

@vk #158
You said:

I'm speaking in liberal terms. If you're a liberal, then you shouldn't oppose the principle that the candidate with the most votes could lose.

I 100% disagree.
A liberal should care about the law just as much as a conservative.
Caring about the demos when it suits a group, but pointing to the law in opposition to the demos - when that suits a group - is pure cynical machination.

The point of laws is that they are passed by a 200+ year agreed upon system. The system can and has changed itself over this time period via changes to the laws, but adherence to the law in effect at the present is what differentiates a civil society vs. anarchy, rule by power, rule by divine right, etc etc.

One of the express purposes of making such changes difficult - as expressly outlined by the Founding Fathers - was to try and ensure that fads, manias and other forms of short term foolishness don't get passed into law very easily, nor that existing laws get changed that easily.

Or put in shorter terms: if its important and people almost all really want it - change happens.
Color revolution and riot tactics are means to get around the law, and so is purely cynical (at its root) political posturing over demos nonsense. The Democrat party, were it truly giving a crap about demos, would be all-in on Medicare For All. Every single poll ever taken shows 70% of Americans in favor of it.
Why don't they do so? Look at the tens and hundreds of millions of campaign finance dollars contributed by the health care insurance, hospital and pharma industries.

I therefore have zero sympathy or agreement with your ongoing repetition of demos nonsense.
Change the law or follow it, otherwise be damned.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 16:15 utc | 167

vk @158 - Not acreage - but based (until Andrew Jackson, hardly any principled person's prez) on PROPERTY VALUE. JUST as in the good ol' UK. Yep - despite NPR folks believing otherwise (clealry never visited a history book) - the aristo controlled (in what way really different?) Britain was actually a "democracy":, and was so from Magna Carta on... Of course it was a, how to say, constrained, constricted "democracy," but then so was the original one in Athens. Those who count as THE Demos - always been a matter for property holder concern... So in GB - male, 21 and over and owning a property of a taxable (always this, huh) value of a certain sum. Ensured that the hoi polloi males over 21 couldn't vote - and for the exact same reasons, I do not doubt, as the intentions behind the Electoral College construct by those less than admirable FFs. Gotta prevent the vast masses of the population - the great unwashed, "the bewildered herd" in Hamilton's verbiage I do believe - from having the ability to grab (well, they knew all about blood-letting theft of land, after all, didn't they?) that sacred "property." (Sacred, surely 'cos owned by the equivalent of the Murican aristos.)

Little - no, Nothing has changed.

Posted by: Anne | Nov 1 2020 16:24 utc | 168

@Down South #159
It shouldn't be surprising. Actual doctors and nurses are, by and large, really great people. They don't want to turn away anyone.
The poorest in America can't afford health care - even the middle class can't really as testified to by the millions of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Hospitals thus were losing large sums of profit treating people who simply could not pay.
Obamacare threw many (not all) of those people onto health insurance company plans by having the government pay the health insurance premium and then having the existing health insurance customers pay via increased premiums - all this on top of the ongoing health care profiteering. That's why Obamacare should really have been called "No Health Insurance Company or Hospital Left Behind".

The existence of Obamacare also distracts people from the real problem: actual affordable health care - which every other nation in the world except the US has, entirely due to national health care.

I've posted this before - I will post it again.
In 2006, I left the semiconductor software industry on my own because I disagreed with management decisions to outsource all jobs to India rather than change their fundamentally flawed business model. Semiconductor software companies are the only part of the design chain that charges by software license rather than per part made - this was great in the early days of semiconductors but is a disaster when the industry consolidates to 5 large multinational but US based companies.

In 2007, I experienced a retinal detachment right after my COBRA ended. I paid $35,000 in cash to get that fixed - including a 5 hour total elapsed journey through a hospital which included a 1 hour surgical room occupancy and 1 hour of recovery time. In the door at 6:30 am and waiting for a taxi at 12:30 pm. The UCSF doctor that attended to me (and did a great job to be clear) said his fee out of all that was $1200.

The following year, some cells stirred loose by the corrective surgery landed on my now-attached retina and started reproducing. Instead of coughing up another $35K (or more), I chose to fly to Australia, consult with the best eye doctor recommended by the Royal Opthalmological Society of Australia and New Zealand.
That doctor's office was literally a light year more advanced than UCSF - supposedly one of the premier teaching hospitals in the US. I pay him AU$5000 - US$4000 at the time, plus another AU$800 for the hospital visit. The Sydney Eye Hospital gave me the choice of staying a 2nd night (I stayed 1 night because I was at the end of the queue for the day, as a foreigner), for free, including meals and medications administered on site.
I paid literally 1/7th the price in AU vs. the US - an Australia is not a 3rd world country. The doctor got paid 3.5x in absolute terms. The service I received was immensely better. Even including travel costs: flight plus 2 weeks in AU (which I was vacationing), the overall cost was still 1/5th of my US experience.

That opened my eyes (literally) to just how fucked up the US system is.

It has only gotten worse since.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 16:30 utc | 169

@Don Bacon #165
Stock price doesn't bear any short term correlation with profits.
Just look at Tesla, Uber and what not.
Health care sector profits have increased disproportionately since Obamacare: CFR report on health insurance company profits

Since ACA implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the S&P 500 by 106 percent.

106% = more than double the overall market.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 16:36 utc | 170

Don Bacon @ 165

Trump has not been able to repeal and replace Obamacare yet so the profits are still rolling in.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 16:36 utc | 171

@ Posted by: Anne | Nov 1 2020 16:24 utc | 167

You're right. The early liberals - specially from the American South - loved to compare themselves with the Athenian Republic. The rationale is that the existence of slaves enabled them to enjoy unparalleled freedom. Black slaves were frequently compared with helots when the problem of slave revolts appeared (with the pro-abolitionists evoking the figure of Spartacus). The South considered itself freer than the North in the USA - it was only after their destruction in 1865 that the tide turned and the North became, retrospectively, the paragon of liberal freedom.

In Europe, England was considered the ultimate free nation. Even American liberals (including Benjamin Franklin) built up their legitimacy on being of English stock (Anglo-Saxon race). With time, liberals begun to legitimize their hegemony with a worldwide racial hierarchy - hence the definition of American democracy as Herrenvolk Democracy ("Master race democracy").

And yes, the original liberals considered the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as their birth date - not the French Revolution of 1789 (which they condemned as illiberal, or "radical"). The founders of neoliberalism (Hayek, Mises, etc. etc.) put 1870 as the apex of liberalism, which they tried to revive.

Posted by: vk | Nov 1 2020 17:00 utc | 172

Escobar writes: "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"

Anyone who actually thinks this is either ignorant or moronic. Biden will absolutely require Iran to limit their ballistic missiles before "rejoining" that then-altered deal. Iran will never let this happen. Thus the deal is essentially dead [as far as US involvement goes, which the other parties should ignore]. MOA notes this as well.

I don't know why though MOA refers to Escobar at all here though. The ignorance demonstrated in the above quote should be enough to disqualify such a person from any discussion about Biden, Iran, etc. and to also ignore anything else such a person claims. You might as well quote a schizophrenic you meet down by the river for his take on Iran and the JCPOA. Might as well learn sign language and ask the chimps at your local zoo what they think about it.

Posted by: Wind Hippo | Nov 1 2020 17:06 utc | 173

c1ue @ 168

You are not the only American who is doing it. They have even developed a term for it - medical tourism:

With rising healthcare costs in the US and the rise of health tourism destinations that offer quality and affordable healthcare perked up by a beautiful travel experience, Americans are scampering to book appointments with healthcare providers far away from home. Yearly, millions of patients travel from countries lacking healthcare infrastructure or less advanced in a particular area of medical care to countries that provide highly-specialized medical care.

https://www.magazine.medicaltourism.com/article/top-10-medical-tourism-destinations-world

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 17:13 utc | 174

Noirette @161: "Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them."

True enough, and as even the bunny claims, this was part of the act. But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.

Keep in mind that one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects of US presidential elections is the "electoral mandate". Far more important than specific campaign promises is the general tone of the campaign. If a winning candidate had campaigned on ending wars, bringing jobs back from abroad, and fighting corruption in government, this isn't just an indication that the public wants something done about these issues. First and foremost it forces an acknowledgement that these are indeed major issues that the public wants to be part of the national discourse that the capitalist mass media tries to control. Allowing these issues to become part of the national discourse is diametrically opposed to the interests of the power elites. They do not want these issues to even be discussed, much less addressed by the state.

So why would they intentionally force these issues into the forefront of national discourse? That is, after all, what Trump's victory did, despite the establishment's best efforts to distract with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Racism, sexism and pussy-grabbing, oh my!". These issues were already smoldering below the surface due to Sanders' campaign, so why would the elites want them fanned into flames?

Answer: They didn't. As much as the issues that the winner campaigns on getting elevated in priority by the "electoral mandate", the loser's issues get diminished. Trump was supposed to lose, and lose bigly, and in the process the things he campaigned on were supposed to be crushed down to objects of ridicule by the corporate mass media. Trump's resounding defeat was supposed to signal that Americans rejected Trump's "conspiracy theories" about some fictitious "deep state" that only existed in Trump's imagination, burying the suspicions that the election fraud committed against Sanders aroused. Trump being ignominiously trounced was supposed to allow the mass media to say that Americans unequivocally voiced their opposition to ending war and their support for intervention in Syria, clearing the way for Clinton's "no fly zone". Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the "deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics, while at the same time crippling their resistance to the social engineering of "identity politics"; social engineering that I should point out is even more ill-conceived and incompetently executed than the 737MAX MCAS system.

Trump was supposed to lose and take those issues with him to the dustbin of history.

It is important to understand this point because it clarifies who our enemies really are and helps us to understand how they view the world.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 17:22 utc | 175

Hi vk @171 - The only alteration I would make to your overview: that Magna Carta was 13thC...

And yes the 1688 Bill of Rights (gained from Billy of Orange) underlay (together with Locke, Hume etc) the Dec of Ind and to some extent the Constitution... All Bourgeois (haute) to a T. The Electoral College is a "pure" manifestation of the socio-economic class construct of this society, even as it pretends otherwise...

Posted by: Anne | Nov 1 2020 17:31 utc | 176

@Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 17:22 utc | 174

You talk about MSM as if FoxNews would not be in full support of Trump, whatever he does..,Thene there is all the myriad of "alt-news" sites created for this purpose, including the military blogs...
What about Trump donors, Adelson and the other Jews? These want the best for the people, do not tell me...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 17:39 utc | 177

Ancient Athens excluded from power slaves and resident foreigners (metics). Also women in the families of male citizens, although one could argue that they had virtual representation through the male citizens in their families. So also for the children in citizens' families, although they would have full rights once they reached adulthood. The adult male citizens who had full political rights were about 20 percent of the population of Attica.

And even the poorest citizens had much more political power than average citizens of today's so-called democracies have today. They could attend and vote in the Assembly, they could be chosen by lot to serve in such bodies as the Council and juries, and to serve in most offices. And for doing all these things there was pay, so that poor citizens had particular motivation to participate, which they did. Just read Aristophanes. No wonder most rich Athenians hated the system.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 1 2020 17:41 utc | 178

H.Schmatz @176: "These want the best for the people, do not tell me..."

You clearly failed to understand my post.

Or perhaps my post lacked clarity? Do point out where I suggested that the welfare of the US population is important to the power elites. I will correct it if I gave that impression.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 17:47 utc | 179

@176 H schmatz

Again, you are mistaken.

I am getting tired of correcting you.

FoxNews drug their heels when it came to supporting DJT in 2015 until it was clear that the majority of conservatives actually wanted DJT as their candidate.

It was at that point that business-smartz kicked in and they had to acknowledge that they must throw their weight behind the Trump ticket lest they prove themselves the faux-conservative Rinos they actually were/are.

Business 101, my friend. You wanna keep the advert. revenue coming in, you produce content your audience actually agrees with.

TBH and AFAIK Tucker Carlson is still the only truly sane conservative on FOx news. The rest, including Hannity, don't neccessarily mind the endless wars so long as the public endorses them. They are chameleons without an ethical lodestar guiding their commentary.

Posted by: NemesisCallimg | Nov 1 2020 18:20 utc | 180


gruff wrote

Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the "deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics,
_____________________________________________

The problem is you think the oligarchs are every bit as stupid as you are. It would be nice if they were, but unfortunately they're not.

First of all lets examine who are these deplorables who you imagine were set up by the oligarchs to be crushed and demoralized by running Trump as their candidate.

The deplorables are:
-The Americans that own the guns

-The Bible thumping American jihadist

-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the states weaponry

-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants

I could go on but all you have to do is tune into the corporate mass media that caters to the deplorables to find out who they are and what they are being sold.

But Mr Gruff is just too stupid to figure out why in the world the oligarchs might want to not antagonize that segment of the population.

The oligarchs would have to have lost their frikken minds to hire trump for the purpose of giving the deplorables a big "fuck you" as you imagine. The oligarchs are well aware that they already gave a big fat finger to the deplorables when they engineered the election of Obama (not to mention the 40 preceding years of marginalizing that segment of the population) and just maybe it was time to pacify that segment of the population that was growing larger and a bit restless.

Posted by: jinn | Nov 1 2020 18:23 utc | 181

William Gruff @ 174

But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.

Amen!!!

I don’t think that people who forward that narrative fully understand how damaging this exposure has been to them.

By being exposed they have been shown to exist. This is super critical! No more is talk of the deep state relegated to the lunatic fringe where they can be easily derided as “conspiracy theorists”

Whether Trump can drain the swamp or not is to be seen but what is not in dispute is that they exist.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 18:31 utc | 182

"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"

And the same as the reason that Trump has not started any wars.
Those days ended when Russia stepped in and said enough is enough and meant it.

'

Posted by: arby | Nov 1 2020 18:46 utc | 183

How can the blob "return" when they never really left?

To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there.

Trump must be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was trying so hard.

The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time.

It's avoidance of those lower probability mega catastrophes that is the principle reason of voting trump out with regards to foreign policy. And there are other reasons.

Posted by: Charles Peterson | Nov 1 2020 19:26 utc | 184

Silly rabbit, I saw you responded but I didn't read it as you usually don't have anything valuable to say.

I am sure Richard is capable of responding if he chooses to.

Posted by: visak | Nov 1 2020 20:05 utc | 185

@ Circe (135) Re: "Uh...so what if black people are in charge? Have you a latent black problem, much?"

I was responding to someone who was clearly blaming all the problems on conservatives and white people. I pointed out that the cities in question were run by Democrat 'liberals' and that a lot of the officials in charge were black people. I see no reason why that was in any way unreasonable or unfair. If used your approach I would have angrily demanded whether _K_C had a problem with white people, much. I didn't because it would have been stupid, aggressive and unreasonable.

You don't make any attempt to be fair or reasonable at all, you just look for any pretext to rant at people hysterically.

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 20:14 utc | 186

@Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 17:47 utc | 178

Well, not only in this post, but you are advocating for Trump during all these past weeks. Thus, yes, may be you should clarify...
Since Trump is funded by the powerful, how do you explain that you advocates Trump will fulfill any of his unfulfilled promises in this, about to be past, legislature?

Thta was my point, if it was not clear enough in my post...

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Nov 1 2020 20:21 utc | 187

@Anne #167
So many people seem to think the Founding Fathers were basically just the guy next door.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
George Washington spent the equivalent of $17000 during the Revolutionary War out of his own pocket purely for intelligence purposes.
That's $300,000 cash in today's terms, more depending on what you compare against.
The "Town Burner" was a very wealthy man. The same can be said for almost all of the other Founding Fathers.
Other things which don't translate well over time: tea. The Boston Tea Party is an apocryphal story of American defiance against British "Taxation without Representation".
The little problem is that tea in that era was a very expensive, conspicuous consumption good imported all the way from China.
Tea prices ranged from $0.50 to $1.63 per pound from 1750 to 1800. To compare: coffee was $0.167 to $0.35 in the same period. Cocoa was $0.16 to $0.25 from 1800 to 1810.
source
Tea then was the equivalent of the double mocha, nonfat latte from Snooty Coffee Co today.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 1 2020 20:27 utc | 188

@ Richard Steven Hack (128)

Re: "Not to interject myself into that discussion, but this caught my eye. What makes you think a Democratic mayor - or any mayor - controls the police in any given city? Even a black police chief can't control a force which is ninety percent white."

A completely fair observation, I might even add that I live in the UK and can hardly claim to have any particular knowledge of how police recruitment is handled in the US, hell it might vary from state to state so far as I know. However this raises a similar point. Why exactly, in a city that has been Democrat run for decades in some cases and even with black majorities in some, are most of the police white? Surely it should have been the responsibility of the city authorities to correct this obvious imbalance. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me regarding the police recruitment procedures in your country, I presume that you are American.

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 20:30 utc | 189

The empire fanboi points out:

The deplorables are: -The Americans that own the guns

-The Bible thumping American jihadist

-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the states weaponry

-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants

For some reason the individual cannot see those are precisely the demographics that the establishment wants demoralized and silenced and just doing what they are told. Strange the poster cannot see that.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 20:39 utc | 190

There is much, much more to this election than all the wars. What about healthcare, kids in cages, racism, sexism, and fanning violence.

Posted by: Carolyn | Nov 1 2020 20:52 utc | 191

Funny that no barfly took the challenge to argue that neither Trump, Biden, Harris, or Pence is fit to govern the USA as was the point of my comment @80 with its comparison of the Chinese and USA's systems. Doesn't it seem rather pointless to argue the merits of two that are so unworthy when it's so damned clear that the entire system's completely rotten and bug and mold infested to the point that it's toxic and not even fumigation will make it livable? What do you do with such a structure? You demo the thing and rebuild from scratch before it completely collapses.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2020 20:55 utc | 192

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2020 20:55 utc | 191

I apologize, I did see your post about how Chinese leadership is selected. It was very interesting. China seems to have a much better concept of leadership than the West. The West's concept of leadership is broken. Most leaders in the West are terrible not just Trump.

Posted by: Quiet Rebel | Nov 1 2020 21:03 utc | 193

H.Schmatz @186

It doesn't matter that Trump didn't fulfill any of his promises. That is part of what you are not understanding. I am not and have never advocated for Trump in the belief that Trump's campaign promises would be fulfilled, but rather that an electoral mandate from the US population for these things that a Trump win represents greatly complicates the plans of the imperial elites and empowers, however slightly, those that the elites are truly afraid of.

Look, the strategy is actually simple. When the imperial elites want you to zig, then you should zag. When the imperial elites want you to jump then you should sit. While some oligarchs are throwing some cash Trump's way, it is obvious that the imperial establishment wants him out. More Trump means more chaos in the empire. It may be difficult to see when in the short term that means more suffering for Americans, but this will ultimately be good for the US if we can pass on from being an empire without destroying the world. If the imperial elites are busy chasing their tails with domestic issues and imaginary Russian interference, then we might make it through this Thucydides trap alive.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 21:13 utc | 194

karlof1 @191

I agree that America's popularity contest approach to choosing its political leadership is a ridiculous farce when compared with China's approach based upon civil service exams and proven performance and merit, but what can you do? China's approach cannot be implemented in the US without a cultural revolution of our own. Look at the heat merit-based college enrollments causes in the US and try to imagine limiting enfranchisement in the political process to merit. "What? People have to know what they are doing and cannot be trying to destroy society to be involved in running society? That's so unfair!"

It is not gonna happen without major changes in America's culture.

Favorite old joke of mine regarding the Republicans: "The government is your enemy! Vote for us and we will prove it!"

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 1 2020 21:26 utc | 195

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 1 2020 20:55 utc | 191

There are quite a few of us here, I would think, that agree neither candidate is really up to the job.

The Chinese meritocratic system works in China for a number of reasons: it has a long history there, the Chinese government has legitimacy and is obeyed by its citizens, the Chinese government is trying to raise all its citizens up so the competition is fair (an important factor if you want the benefits of meritocracy, and to keep the public on board), and the Chinese government works to prevent the meritocrats from getting a snotty attitude because of their success.

Overcoming the natural human propensities for nepotism, egotism, and cronyism is no easy task.

Since few of those conditions obtain here, we're going to have to work for it. (If we want it, given the propensities of many of my fellow citizens, it's not clear "we" want it here.) Here we are taught to hate and fear government, and not without cause, and the politicians generally hate and fear their citizens, so it's going to be a long campaign. Look at the campaigns here: we're supposed to give them money for running for office so they can win. This is supposed to be better than having them give us money for voting for them.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 1 2020 21:57 utc | 196

Posted by: MarkU | Nov 1 2020 20:30 utc | 188 Perhaps you would care to enlighten me regarding the police recruitment procedures in your country, I presume that you are American.

In most cases, it's probably a case of history making the situation. Back in the day when racism was overt, police were by definition recruited from the white population and were probably racist. Over their careers, some of them become chiefs. They control the recruiting and the administration of officers. If they're told to hire blacks, or the city hiring office does, they still control how the new officers are treated.

In addition to that is the effect of the culture within police departments. As some of us barflies have mentioned in the past, the culture drives out cops who want to serve the public and retains cops who are racist and corrupt. This is especially true in large city departments and probably also true in very small towns where the pool of available officers is low (the classic "small town Southern sheriff" syndrome one sees in the movies.) So over time one ends up with a thoroughly corrupt department. In New York back in the '60's or '70s, a commission found every single officer on the force was on the take to one degree or another. Not just a few bad apples - every single cop in New York was taking bribes at one level or another.

Then add in the militarization angle. As a result of cop culture developing a "us vs them" military-like esprit de corps, most cops view themselves as "white knights" (frequently literally white) protecting America from the underclass. And that's historically in most countries what cops were intended to do - keep down the underclass from revolting against state oppression. It's no different in the US.

We have a history of cop TV shows like the old "Adam 12" where a bunch of young, honest, good-looking cops always behave honorably towards citizens and criminals. But we also have a history of cop shows and movies where the cops routinely violate the law and civil rights to "take down the bad guys." The US electorate that *doesn't* routinely encounter cops in their daily lives see this as justifiable. The minorities and lower class whites who suffer under police brutality and disparaging treatment know differently but aren't listened to because, by definition, they're not "acceptable people". It's the same old, same old primate hierarchy. If you're at the bottom of the social totem pole, for whatever reason, you have to be kept there by any means necessary - in the view of those who aren't there.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 22:37 utc | 197

Karlof1 @ 191:

I did see your post @ 80 some time during the weekend but got caught up with other things.

The Chinese system of selecting leaders based on the evaluations of CCP members who work for or with them resembles an initiative at one place where I used to work, in which employees were asked to evaluate their supervisors and managers. I don't think the initiative got very far but that may have been because in that organisation, people tended to treat anything put forward by the HR department cynically. (But then, that's often the case with initiatives generated by HR departments in private and public corporations!)

At least in Australia it might be easy to get rid of such people ... we could cut all communication and transport links between Canberra and the rest of the country. Alas, the politicians take their holidays during the peak of the bushfire season.

It is interesting that the CCP runs its affairs very differently from what we'd expect of a large government bureaucracy with the emphasis on merit, the constant evaluation of people based on their performance and the judgement of their peers and the people they supervise ... aspects of organisation we'd expect in a marketing organisation or in organisations of past decades where managerial and supervisory appointments were filled internally and were based on past performance and evaluation, whereas these days such appointments have to be advertised externally and rely much more on having a narrow set of professional qualifications, a set number of years of experience in similar organisations, and fulfilling criteria that help the organisations achieve "diversity"-related criteria.

We need to bear in mind also that in Western countries, the vast majority of politicians have legal backgrounds or have worked in PR for political parties. Our current Prime Minister Scott Morrison is one such creature (hence his nickname Scotty From Marketing: his constant public grandstanding on the COVID-19 pandemic when it spread to Australia is typical) and former British Prime Minister David Cameron was another such being. These days political leaders are groomed for political leadership while they are still at university and sometimes even before they enrol: in Britain, a great many politicians now seem to have done the same Oxford University undergraduate degree course (Philosophy, Politics, Economics or PPE). In short, Western political elites are becoming self-sustaining and more isolated from their publics in terms of their education, their knowledge and skills, and their experience; with time, they will become a self-reproducing caste and a true aristocracy, in which their children only ever marry one another.

You may be well aware that in China, most political leaders past and present (and especially leaders in the Politburo) tend to have scientific, engineering or technical qualifications, and I am sure that emphasis on having such qualifications and experience explains a great deal about China's rapid rise in many sectors, not just the economic and industrial sectors. This situation is changing and future political leaders are likely to come from business administration, education and the humanities, and to have studied abroad.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 1 2020 22:40 utc | 198

Sorry my comment @ 197 was not edited well - that third paragraph should have come second last.

Karlof1 @ 191:

I did see your post @ 80 some time during the weekend but got caught up with other things.

The Chinese system of selecting leaders based on the evaluations of CCP members who work for or with them resembles an initiative at one place where I used to work, in which employees were asked to evaluate their supervisors and managers. I don't think the initiative got very far but that may have been because in that organisation, people tended to treat anything put forward by the HR department cynically. (But then, that's often the case with initiatives generated by HR departments in private and public corporations!)

It is interesting that the CCP runs its affairs very differently from what we'd expect of a large government bureaucracy with the emphasis on merit, the constant evaluation of people based on their performance and the judgement of their peers and the people they supervise ... aspects of organisation we'd expect in a marketing organisation or in organisations of past decades where managerial and supervisory appointments were filled internally and were based on past performance and evaluation, whereas these days such appointments have to be advertised externally and rely much more on having a narrow set of professional qualifications, a set number of years of experience in similar organisations, and fulfilling criteria that help the organisations achieve "diversity"-related criteria.

We need to bear in mind also that in Western countries, the vast majority of politicians have legal backgrounds or have worked in PR for political parties. Our current Prime Minister Scott Morrison is one such creature (hence his nickname Scotty From Marketing: his constant public grandstanding on the COVID-19 pandemic when it spread to Australia is typical) and former British Prime Minister David Cameron was another such being. These days political leaders are groomed for political leadership while they are still at university and sometimes even before they enrol: in Britain, a great many politicians now seem to have done the same Oxford University undergraduate degree course (Philosophy, Politics, Economics or PPE). In short, Western political elites are becoming self-sustaining and more isolated from their publics in terms of their education, their knowledge and skills, and their experience; with time, they will become a self-reproducing caste and a true aristocracy, in which their children only ever marry one another.

At least in Australia it might be easy to get rid of such people ... we could cut all communication and transport links between Canberra and the rest of the country. Alas, the politicians take their holidays during the peak of the bushfire season.

You may be well aware that in China, most political leaders past and present (and especially leaders in the Politburo) tend to have scientific, engineering or technical qualifications, and I am sure that emphasis on having such qualifications and experience explains a great deal about China's rapid rise in many sectors, not just the economic and industrial sectors. This situation is changing and future political leaders are likely to come from business administration, education and the humanities, and to have studied abroad.

That should read better now.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 1 2020 22:42 utc | 199

Posted by: Quiet Rebel | Nov 1 2020 15:10 utc | 150 It is a failure of leadership.

That's not rare in US politics. Never said anyone should be absolved. Said this is how it is for known reasons. And it ain't gonna change.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Nov 1 2020 22:45 utc | 200

« previous page | next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.