« End game in Aleppo | Main | Sanders delegate's video of DNC "shaping" the audience last night »

29 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Your last paragraph contains a Big 'If". He seems incapable of self-censoring, a two-second tape delay would help. Could someone please send him a copy of that famous cartoon, the one with the GI holding a canteen cup, and saying: How about a nice big cup of STFU?


The next 14 days will reveal where all this will go. Unless The Orange Clown invents an even more creative way to destroy his candidacy (and he is pretty damn good at that), it will be a squeaker.

The only play for the Dems will be to focus on getting people who normally will not vote to get to a voting booth come November. They do not have an impressive record of doing that, now that Richard Daily is long gone.

HRC's speech was all about detoxification. IMO, it didn't work and it will not in the coming months. She is the most damaged presidential candidate I can imagine emerging in this age.


I didn't watch the conventions. I hate to watch politicians speak. It's all such grandstanding, nothing more than advertising and promotion. Caveat emptor!

What's important is what Nixon said: "watch what we do, not what we say." Based on that sage advice, you can ignore whatever was said during the conventions.

Fortunately, we have a record for the Clintons, and it is appalling. Unfortunately, we don't have a record for Trump, but what he says is appalling.

In any case, I'm voting third party. I don't live in a swing state, so it won't make a difference other than registering my disgust with the two evils.


Thanks for this. I was just about to post the link.

For those who would like the tinyurl, here it is: http://tinyurl.com/j7quqkj


"From a non-American perspective Trump is very likely much less disastrous than Clinton."

As a non-US citizen, I am in full agreement with that observation.

I can't stand the mere voice of that Clinton creature, to be had. But reading through the transcript of yesterday's speech by it truly makes me cringe:


What kinda stood out to me was this repeated plea to "join":

"If you believe that companies should share profits, not pad executive bonuses, join us. If you believe the minimum wage should be a living wage… and no one working full time should have to raise their children in poverty… join us.

If you believe that every man, woman, and child in America has the right to affordable health care…join us. If you believe that we should say “no” to unfair trade deals... that we should stand up to China... that we should support our steelworkers and autoworkers and homegrown manufacturers…join us.

If you believe we should expand Social Security and protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions… join us.

And yes, if you believe that your working mother, wife, sister, or daughter deserves equal pay… join us... Let's make sure this economy works for everyone, not just those at the top."

What a bunch of lies..the rather annoying repetition of that "join us" reminds me of one certain flick - and apparently someone already got to work summing the degree to which this "speech" can be trusted rather nicely:


Margaret Steinfels

I live in NYC and grew up in Chicago. That makes me a foreigner in my own country. Can I tell the rest of you fur'ners, you'll be sorry if Donald Trump wins.

Ishmael Zechariah

I know next-to-nothing about Trump except what I read in the media. I hope -and a faint hope this is- that he might take a stand against the neo-cons, and de-emphasize the global domination project these have started. OTOH, I consider it highly likely that Clinton will double down and continue the current disastrous policies in the world. I consider it proven that she is a wholly-owned asset of the Borg -I do not think is the Borg queen, BTW. So, all-in-all I hope Trump wins. He seems to be hated by all the right people.
Ishmael Zechariah


As an Irishman, my biggest concern would be Syria, followed by Russia.

In that case, Trump's isolationism "trumps" Hillary's warmongering, which I think could escalate into another Iraq level quagmire for the US. At this late stage in the Syria war, to produce a rebel victory (the Clinton clique goal) would require US boots on the ground. Would be a disaster.

Isolationism as a theory gets knocked about a lot, but sometimes when the world becomes choatic, the smartest option is to just rid it out at home.

In saying all that, I'm not the person who has live under a President Trump. I have the luxury of focusing on the candidates foreign policies. No doubt Americans domestically will suffer under Trump's mismanagement (then again fear they will suffer domestically under Clinton's mismanagement as well).

All in all two crap candidates.


From a partially emotional point of view, and as a foreigner, in choosing between two not so good solutions (which is more or less always a case in politics), I'd prefer Trump to be the POTUS. Didn't like the impression he made in the show ''apprentice'' where he often made hastily and seemingly unfounded decisions(It looked like he's so used to firing people, that pronouncing ''You're fired'', was kind of a ritual, like morning coffee). Also, can't deny that he doesn't have the calmness and charm of Obama, and tends to have strange ideas.

But many of his foreign policy arguments, especially the ones regarding the need for cooperation with Russia, and not necessarily predefined hostility towards it, sound very reasonable. He also doesn't talk around the bush, which is sometimes necessary in a modern world where political correctness tends to be used to silence dialogue or dissenting opinions. All the time in a fight with the predominant part of the MSM, BORG, neocons and etc. who are dissecting every word he says, every phrase he uses. He dares to speak of ideas and problems that are not mainstream blessed. And as the Yugoslav/Serb communists would ask their soldiers who after WW2 went for higher education while still in the army – Why do you need the school, don’t you believe in the (Communist) Party (and its interpretation of everything you need to know)?

The emotional part, i.e. the biased part is the one regarding Hillary and the beginning of the borg...IMO, before Bill Clinton, there was a cold war with some kind of balance of power between US and SU, fighting it all over the globe. After that came the demise of the Soviet Union, world dominance of the US, Clinton as president and the formation of the borg. There was no serious opposition in the world, internet was not very strong, Hollywood was a constant as always and the forming borg just finished building a mother ship – CNN and started experimenting.

E.g. after the fall of communism and realizing from prison, Nelson Mandela was to be given the status of a superstar, which is not bad per se, but is a contrast to prior treatment of this great man by the msm. Another example was the war in Yugoslavia, where another borg, the late Warren Zimmerman, persuaded Bosnian Muslim leaders the late Alija Izetbegovic to withdraw his signature from the Cutileiro peace plan. As a result more than a hundred thousand people died, many others were wounded, expelled, etc. The Borg felt such powerful, that the mentioned Zimmerman protested to Bill Clinton because the US wouldn’t intervene in the Bosnian conflict against the Serbs, and here’s how a reporter - Amanpour talked to a US president at that time

The Clintons ended leading the Borg, and 20 years from then, to this day, that's what's keeping Hillary politically powerful and media exposed.

Apart from the foreign relations topics, I suppose that most of the US citizens simply want to make a living and lead a decent life, with a strong and educated middle class. Any candidate which is more likely to enable that, will have better chances.


Will we be happy if Mrs. Clinton wins? If yes, why?


Trump and Hillary, horrible human beings, are a reflection of us the people of the USA . How and why have we become so rotten ? I have always believed that one of the reasons American kids do drugs is the shocking and sad awareness we get in our teens of how utterly full of shit our parents and other adults in our society are. We are a country of liars who's reality is far different from the rhetoric and the platitudes that we preach. Christians are so very unchristian. Scientists sellout to the corporate funders of their research. Priests boink kids . Ministers live in mansions . Disabled people live in squalor . In my experience the average black American is the most astute citizen because they know how corrupt things really are here.

Margaret Steinfels

No, "y'all" will not be happy.


Michael Hudson on the convention and prospects: http://tinyurl.com/gvaukqe

This is one intereting bit: 'Obama’s brilliant demagogy left many eyes glazed over in admiration. Nobody is better at false sincerity while misrepresenting reality so shamelessly. Probably few caught the threatening hint he dropped about Hillary’s plan for corporations to share their profits with their workers. This sounds to me like the Pinochet plan to privatize Social Security by turning it into exploitative ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Programs). The idea is that wage withholding would be steered to buy into the company’s stock – bidding it up in the process. Employees then would end up holding an empty bag, as occurred recently with the Chicago Tribune. That seems to be the great “reform” to “save” Social Security that her Wall Street patrons are thinking up.'

There is much more in the article to chew on.

Trey N

Great idea, because with "Fuck the EU!" Nuland as Hitlery's Secretary of State and God-knows-which-psycopath-neocon as Secretary of War, all mankind will be totally wiped out in a nuclear holocaust within the first 30 days of the hag's presidency.

And that wouldn't be much of a wargame....


Trump will certainly start a trade war, and very likely a military war, with China. For decades Trump has said that China is taking advantage of us; that China and others do not respect the United States because our military is too weak. He truly believes this.

Clinton is a professional politician, and hopefully something of a pragmatist. With Nuland as SecState, she will poke the bear for four years, increase sanctions, perhaps start a warm war with Russia but not a hot one. Except:

There is a good possibility that Clinton and perhaps Trump could replay the Cuban Missile Crisis. To refresh American minds, this was started when America based Jupiter atomic missiles in Turkey, and Khrushchev countered with a quid pro quo in Cuba; it was ended when Kennedy blinked, and offered to withdraw the missiles from Turkey. HOWEVER, the Borg at the time spun this as initiated by the "Evil Soviets" against our blameless innocence, who were only eventually deterred by our "stalwart President". And generations of Americans have been taught thus. Dr. Polk, correct me if I'm wrong.

History repeats as America bases missiles in Poland & Romania, ostensibly to protect against a future potential Iranian nuke threat (do these actually protect against actual Israel nuke ICBMS? Perhaps they make sense). Because there IS no Iranian nuclear weapons program, Russia perceives this as an existential threat, and may counter appropriately.

We thus get a choice between a definite (but probably survivable) war with China, and a possible (but possibly unsurvivable) war with Russia.

as China and Russia have a mutual defense pact, in case of a hot war there will be little difference.

Clinton is a con woman but she knows how to work the system. Barring nuclear catastrophe, the country will lurch on and survive. Trump is a post-modern con-man who has taken the mastery of bull$hit non-communication to a whole new level. He could easily pull an Ergodan. America as we know it may not survive.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution hits in two years. If we can stay out of a hot war that long, the economy will eventually turn itself around. The primary responsibility for the next President will be keeping America out of a hot war.


Polls don't matter until after Labor Day. Trump seems to think all press is good press, I think he'll find out that's not true. Crossover voting will be slightly higher than usual, but nothing earth shattering. My guess is still a fairly narrow Clinton victory, in the 51 - 53% range.


Voting for hiliray just because she's a women is insane (heard this logic in us media).


Babelfish: If you knew nothing about Hillary Clinton before her speech, then her speech was impressive. However, if you have followed her career, you're probably thinking, "Who is this liberal imposter posing as Hillary Clinton?"

In politics, personnel is policy.

The Neo-Cons are rallying to Hillary. That's enough to make her toxic.


Margaret Steinfels

But "you guys" often directed to a group of mixed gender, or "youse" or "yuns" will be eh? pl


I'm sure you all have seen that great friend and confidant of the Clintons, Terry McAuliffe, pretty much spilled the beans that it's exactly what she'll do. And of course there was the usual back-pedaling and retractions of statements. No worry - if you say something on TV, you can later say you didn't mean it, which means you didn't say it. What a strange world this is...

Margaret Steinfels

I thought "y'all" would cover the gendered, the ungendered, the bi-gendered, the transgendered, and the multi-gendered. They know who they are!

Stephen Calhoun

Clinton 277 Trump 261 (electoral college) This guess assumes Trump will not foolishly campaign in New York and California.

Dem Senate by 1, GOP House

Gridlock continues, and this reminds me that the low ratings for Congress are split between those who understand Congress are corrupt failures because: (1) failed to unwind Obamacare and New Deal, (2) failed to pass single payer and put New Deal on steroids.

Faced with gridlock, would Trump declare a state of emergency, and proceed to, at least, dominate his enemies? (You would be unable to convince me that Trump is not, in the clinical sense, mentally ill.)

HRC, faced with gridlock would likely follow the Obama playbook of the last six years.

GOP will declare after the election: "We will make every effort to make Mrs. Clinton a one term president, and, her agenda is dead-on-arrival."


I think the big picture remains mostly unchanged, and the conventions seemed designed to keep things as they were.

The Democrats hold a demographic advantage that Trump can overcome only with the cleverest of campaigns and/or a lot of good luck. His own issues are likely to get in the way of him getting "lucky" over next few months, though.

The big demographic picture has always been as they are now: the minorities and the coastal elites break in big numbers for the Democrat, but, especially among the former, turnout is relatively low. Obama in 2012 raised the turnout among the former quite a lot and the latter respond well in general to "save-the-world-by-transforming-it-beyond-recognition" stuff. Democratic campaign strategy, including how the convention was staged, is designed to keep this trend; the Republicans got a reliable majority of suburban whites who usually turn out in large numbers and a large majority of the white working class who don't turn out as much--these are different in 2016, with many suburbanites unsure about Trump but more of the working class (but not by large margins) interested instead. Trump is unpopular in national polls precisely because of the suburban whites, especially women, and if he loses, this is what will have caused it.

The big unknown is the nonvoting part of the white working class: they used to be solidly Democratic, but are now mostly nonvoters--and far less Republican than people think, as reflected in their low turnout. What Sanders showed, much more than his ability to draw out the young and the liberal, was that, with the right message, many of these apolitical white working class voters might still turn Democratic...but the Clinton machine is clearly intent on kicking them to the curb. Trump CAN appeal to them much more than, say, Romney ever can. It is not clear that he can, and the best he can do, even if he does lure a reasonable share of them to his side, is to capture the minimal majority. I don't think they care much for "social conservatism" stuff, even if they might lean in that direction on average: they are concerned mostly about economic and personal well-being and security--jobs, terrorism, security, health care, education, and other basic services, etc: not exactly what matches up neatly with either party, at least in terms of conventional politics. I think Clinton is already making some mistakes with these voters, but it will be a very steep uphill climb for Trump to take advantage--but he is probably the only Republican who can even try with any chance of winning many of them over.


As far as I know, at corporate level something similar was fairly common practice when 401Ks were not the rule. For example; GM in the funding of their retirement plans often would invest that money into GM Stock instead of diversifying. I always that that it was way too much risk to have both your retirement plan and your paycheck relying on the same company. At a minimum, the company should have provided a choice. This would not be possible without some government acquiescence in the rules governing retirement plans.

Babak Makkinejad

FYI - mighty be of interest to you:


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad