Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

You know what else is a joke, the assertion that Clinton is moving left and adopting the Sanders platform.

...It's much more important to let HRC and her people know that the Sanders platform she's adopted is important. If the Sanders supporters give up now, it will be a horrible mistake. No one else has been able to work within the system and get the powerful to take notice in the last 50+ years.

HRC has repudiated all the substantive elements of the Sanders platform in word and deed. Once Bernie rolled over, nothing of substance remained. What does remain serves as window dressing to the mollify the Kool-Aiders that made the switch. If she takes office, all of that goes in to the round file on November 9th. The Democratic establishment hates the left and this is their most basic link with the GOP establishment.

Clinton has moved to the right because that is her strategy to win - peel away anti-Trump Republicans. So the Clinton post-primary migration toward the right comes as no surprise - except it seems to her most die-hard loyalists. The Hillary or Bust folks are trying to convince themselves that voting for the She-Wolf of Goldman Sachs is acceptable because (a) Trump and (b) somewhere down deep under Hillary’s Dr. Evil outfits there’s a Berner waiting to get out and do some good for the world.

Asserting that Clinton is moving left toward Sander's voters is magical thinking at best. Nothing in the campaign and the post-primary supports this belief. They are on opposite sides or the war, trade, the banks and Wall Street.

Sanders remains antiwar, Hillary a pro-war neocon.




Her hawkish approach to foreign-policy sprang not out of the vacuum but from her hobnobbing with a bunch of disreputable neoconservatives who belong in prison rather than advising a possible future president: war criminal Henry Kissinger, Iraq War schemer Robert Kagan (Robert Kagan, for crissakes!), Bush deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and Max Boot.

Sanders opposes TPP, whereas Hillary helped negotiate the deal. As Secretary of State, she was for it. Only under pressure from Bernie does she pretend to be against it. The former Clinton DNC head Terry McAuliffe assures donors that she's just blowing smoke:

Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: “Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...p-trade-226253

She might fool some of the people looking to be fooled, but as president, she’ll sign the TPP.

And HRC's selection of Tim Kaine, a conservative “Third Way” Democrat in the, well, Clinton mold, was a big FU from Hillary to Sanders' people and they all know it.

“It’s a form of Hillary Clinton saying to the Bernie Sanders constituency, ‘Screw you,’ because we think we have enough of you,” said Norman Solomon, the Marin County, California-based leader of an informal group of Sanders delegates known as the Bernie Delegates Network.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...vention-226313

Only a dedicated Clinton partisan could manage the double-think required to watch Hillary move further to the right and call it evidence that she's adopting Bernie's platform.

This strategy is based on the preposterous belief she can get more than 10 million Republicans to move to her from Donald Trump — in other words, nearly 20% of the Republican general election turnout in 2012. This is pure fantasy. Not counting caucus states, over 13.1 million people voted for Sanders. Conservatively, 15% of these Berners – just shy of 2 million voters – currently say that they won’t vote for Clinton. Extrapolate those results to the approximately 66 million Democrats who turned out in the 2012 general election, and you get 10 million. Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney by fewer than 5 million votes.

Instead of Clinton adopting the Sanders platform, the Democrat's are doing all they can to attract Republican establishment figures like Kagan and his rogues gallery of Iraq War fans. She has made common cause with the Republican establishment figures to McGovern Trump. What we see here is an integration of the political class, including our famously free press, with the Democrat campaign apparatus. There are few precedents for this alliance in American politics.

To me, this is the real issue that is being ignored in the hysteria over Trump - the ongoing merger of the two party establishments, parallel to the emergence of a left that is not part of either establishment. After all, the Republicans tend to be given the portfolios for the Defense Department and the FBI already, so why not consummate matters in a more visible fashion?

And when liberals and conservatives are both neoliberals (as they are), we’re not talking issues of principle: We’re talking the narcissism of small differences. And to both party establishments — or a horridly merged blob comprising both establishments — the real enemy is the left.

That's how one can come from an enthusiastic Bernie supporter to an "if he be a lout, then make the most of it" supporter of Trump. Clinton identifies the left as her main enemy and shows her true colors in seeking a right-leaning GOP/Democrat alliance. The enemies of her enemies are her friends.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

+1 Woodsman, I couldn't have said it better.

I really think the book by Vance spells it out well for me (ok, the interview, I haven't read the book - yet), except, I'd add that the definition of hillbilly carries up the food chain to the 10% - 15% ers struggling both economically, and also with the basic idea that the large body of journalists/elites in this country don't speak for them or at the very least question all candidates with equal prejudice. I like to see candidates properly vetted.....and Hillary wouldn't cross the first hurdle in any other circumstance. Oh well, this is nothing new.

That carrying up the food chain is wherein lies the potential surprise. I have spoken with plenty of sound minded folks from the NY metro area (mostly but not all, independents and a smattering of republicans) who hate the personality of Trump and are embarrassed by what he says in his knee jerk way, but seem like they will be voting for him. He'll still lose in NJ (my state).

I think most folks could accept a platform from an average candidate from either party.....but, without proper vetting to get them to publicly explain exactly what they are going to do, are we, from either side of the aisle, ready for either candidates agenda?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

“Please, the NYT is 100% behind HRC. They are an adjunct of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.”

Couldn't agree more.

Democracy Now is the news source I trust the most. I consider it fiercely anti-liberal.

“The morning after election day will prove equally as surprising.”

Maybe so, but if so, so what, and then what?

That is the question everyone I know is posing.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. Now one may not have an actual problem with that because they share the premises on which it is based. But that doesn’t mean that journalists or citizens should be expected to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be, in order to bring Trump down. But they are and Americans of self-described liberal and democratic tendencies don't seem to care at all.

The US MSM is a joke, controlled by a small group of businessmen with sometimes sadistic interests. Ever since the Ukraine sabotage, I've stopped watching and reading CNN.com and NYT, I still read BBC although it is still biased.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

And you don't think one could make such a video at a Hillary event? You haven't heard the hysterics pointed at Trump and his supporters?

Please, the NYT is 100% behind HRC and has like the rest of the elite media given up even the pretense to objectivity. They are an adjunct of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.

New York Times Relentlessly Biased Against Trump, Reports New York Times

An astonishing piece ("Why Readers See The Times as Liberal") appeared in the New York Times (NYT) recently. It reported a fierce bias in the Times’s coverage of politics and current affairs, most notably when it comes to Donald Trump. The bias turns up not just in the opinion pages but in the News, reports Liz Spayd, the new “public editor,” a position once called the ombudsman.

But the surprise does not end there. Spayd’s report is based on letters from liberal readers, which are filling her inbox to overflowing. Here are some examples that she cites:

“You’ve lost a subscriber because of your relentless bias against Trump — and I’m not even a Republican,” writes an Arizonan.

“I never thought I’d see the day when I, as a liberal, would start getting so frustrated with the one-sided reporting that I would start hopping over to the Fox News webpage to read an article and get the rest of the story that the NYT refused to publish,” writes a woman from California.

“The NY Times is alienating its independent and open-minded readers, and in doing so, limiting the reach of their message and its possible influence,” writes a Manhattanite.

Since these examples are all letters from liberals, the public editor comments:

“You can imagine what the letters from actual conservatives sound like….

“Emails like these stream into this office every day. A perception that the Times is biased prompts some of the most frequent complaints from readers. Only they arrive so frequently, and have for so long, that the objections no longer land with much heft.”

Of course this is nothing new for the Times. The bias in favor of the latest project of the American Imperium has been true for my entire lifetime. But it used to be subtler, and it used to include some real information, albeit buried away somewhere deep within an article. Noam Chomsky was once fond of reminding us that it was better to read the Times articles backwards, because some truth was buried in the last couple paragraphs....

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/...ew-york-times/

The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. Now one may not have an actual problem with that because they share the premises on which it is based. But that doesn’t mean that journalists or citizens should be expected to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be, in order to bring Trump down. But they are and Americans of self-described liberal and democratic tendencies don't seem to care at all.

With Clinton, it's always ends justifying means, even if it means the end of any pretense of fair and objective journalism or elections free of taint or influence. If you think you can deploy this once in an "emergency" and then return to regularly scheduled programming, you folks have another thing coming. We can survive any presidency, but what is left of an America where the press becomes an adjunct of a political party, when the Democratic Party abandons all pretense to democracy, and when we cease to have free elections?

Elites and their cultural acolytes are all talking to each other and agreeing with each other, reinforcing each others prejudices and blind spots, and uniformly and aggressively policing any dissent, no matter how small, no matter how reasoned or principled, instantly castigating anyone who dares question the HRC orthodoxy, accusing them of everything from crypto-fascist tendencies to out and out racism or even mental illness.

And this is precisely how morning after Brexit came as such a surprise and why I am convinced barring vote tampering the likes we have not seen in this nation, the morning after election day will prove equally as surprising.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

So, how does that work? Elect HRC and then hit the streets to hold her feet to the fire? While at the same time a republican house is trying to impeach her and willing to shut down the government? It's hard for me to imagine anything but violence after this election is over whichever way it goes.

Sounds a little like Norther Ireland at its worst. We overcame the violence by getting people to talk to each other rather than every time resorting to the gun.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm not so concerned about these people. I suspect everyone in the US understands that these horrible white folks live here with us. They haven't had any power for 50 years. It's much more important to let HRC and her people know that the Sanders platform she's adopted is important..

So, how does that work? Elect HRC and then hit the streets to hold her feet to the fire? While at the same time a republican house is trying to impeach her and willing to shut down the government? It's hard for me to imagine anything but violence after this election is over whichever way it goes.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Clinton or anybody else could just make this their campaign add. Pretty sick.

I'm not so concerned about these people. I suspect everyone in the US understands that these horrible white folks live here with us. They haven't had any power for 50 years. It's much more important to let HRC and her people know that the Sanders platform she's adopted is important. If the Sanders supporters give up now, it will be a horrible mistake. No one else has been able to work within the system and get the powerful to take notice in the last 50+ years.

Democracy is the bread of the US system. If we demand it, we'll get it. If we give up and whine about not getting it baked to our satisfaction, we'll get HRC just like Bill. I'd prefer that didn't happen.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

http://nyti.ms/2b2UjMV

Clinton or anybody else could just make this their campaign add. Pretty sick.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

http://nyti.ms/2b2UjMV

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...uthor-explains

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

"Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clin...ons-1469997195

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/07/Report-Skolkvovo-.pdf

So much for only Trump accused of being cozy with the Russians. Clinton's actions speak much thank misinterpretations of what Trumps words mean.

[DSpencer]

Re: Trump to win?

Sounds great. What percentage of the voting-age population participates in the "direct democracy" and what percentage is completely disconnected?

To be fair, if there are fewer people that actually bother to show up, that just means your vote counts for much more if you do.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

The system is rigged at national, state, and county levels. Always has been, always will be. The people with more dough and more info dominate. I went to a local election board meeting while I was back in the states. NC is in the national news for openly screwing voters. This meeting was about stopping voting on campus and making the 4000 people who voted there the last time drive or find rides out of town to a place that has 30 parking spaces instead of 800. 46 people signed up to speak, 2 minute limit. About ten would have made good youtube video’s for political science classes in middle or high school. Tempers flared. There were cops at the back. It was 9 to 1 “It ain’t broke, don’t fix it, just let us vote.” The 9 lost. The 1 won. Sad.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Sounds great. What percentage of the voting-age population participates in the "direct democracy" and what percentage is completely disconnected?

I don't know of many good studies on that. I'm guessing it will vary greatly from town to town. You need a minimum number for it to count. So in Maine, for example, I believe you need to hit at least 10% of the number of people who cast votes in the last governor election to strike quorum.

This article from last year in Vermont said the maximum was the town of Rutland (pop 17,000+) where 56% of registered voters showed up and participated, and the minimum was Morristown Vermont (pop 5,000+), where only 4% came out. They say the average was 20%-30%.

The smaller the town, the higher the participation rate generally, in my experience. But what really makes the difference is the issues on the docket. If there's nothing exciting, and you don't expect a lot exciting, it's hard to get people worked up. A lot of times you get people cycling in and out as things concern/interest them. So you may have really low attendance for a lot of meetings where road repairs and police hirings or something are discussed, but then, when it comes to shutting and old school down and building a new one (as recently happened with us), everyone comes out of the woodwork, and you'll fill the entire high school basketball court and stands easily.

Then there are people who just let it ride and never bother to show up. That's their right too. And there are people who have a hard time getting there. That is a legitimate problem.

But I'd say people who don't participate usually fall into 4 categories generally: 1) the young and childless, 2) the old and disabled, 3) the wealthy and aloof who use private schools and services for everything and just don't care, and 4) the actually disconnected--either old swampers at the edge of town who tend not to come in, or even good chunks of the struggling lower classes.

Like I said, it's not perfect.

But if you care and want to get involved, you can, directly and easily. Growing up, we'd have to go to meetings for school and write reports on what happened. And the old scouts would make us attend and write reports too. And we'd see how it affected our own little activities and their budgets and everything at a small scale. And we'd learn and watch how things got done. Public schools would do this standard. So it's not as if anyone being brought up in town--except for maybe the well-to-do private school kids--should be ignorant of what it is, how it works, and what goes on there. And of course, being direct democracy, and heart-strings and theatrics being what they are, pulling the kids into the room when a movement's afoot to take their football team away or something is a common enough tactic.

But I even think that is good. Make neighbors look each other in the eye and say, "I want to tax you $X for $Y," or "I'm not paying for you any more kid!" or whatever kind of makes the whole process, well, not less tense, but often more civil.