« Arwa Damon is brave ... | Main | The Revolt of the Deplorables »

08 November 2016

Comments

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

jonst

says you. It can always "be worse", and often is.

jonst

"Hillary is rational and smart". I would tweak that a bit. 'Hillary is rational and shrewd".

different clue

bks,

Yes, yes it can.

Obama deepened and permanentized the Cheney/bush legacy, and if Clinton gets elected, she will build further upon Obama's numerous decomplishments.

different clue

Well, if Michigan goes to Trump, I can take one little voteful of pride in having helped that to happen.

I hated to do it, but it had to be done.

Trump . . . for Peace.
Trump . . . for the sake of my brother.
Trump . . . to stop the Clintons before they kill again.

different clue

ked,

Stephen Colbert taught us the difference between true and truthy, truth and truthiness.

Is Clinton smart or merely smarty? Does she possess smartness or merely smartiness? If she is so smart, why has she learned nothing from the way Libya has turned out after toppling its Head Strongman In Charge? Why does she think Syria will turn out any different if Maximus Leaderus Assad is toppled? Where is the smartness?

steve g

Col Lang
You may be correct on the final outcome
but to use two quotes from one of America's
greatest philosophers, one Yogi Berra, number
8 in your NYY program.
"It ain't over till it's over"
"It ain't over till the fat lady sings."
Who the current fat lady-might be is another
question as Kate Smith is long gone.

turcopolier

mistah charly Ph D.

I rarely read his blog or any other. I don't care what terminology he uses. This is on the same principle that I never read literature about anything I participated in. I do not wish to confuse what I remember. pl

turcopolier

All

I would be pleased to see the election in the House of Representatives. pl

Dubhaltach

In reply to jonst 08 November 2016 at 02:07 PM

The OP described her as "smart" you are calling her "shrewd" well perhaps, but she puts me in mind of the description "cunning but stupid" to be found throughout the Middle East. Or if you prefer the Irish version "so sharp she'll cut herself". I don't care if she cuts herself I do feel very sorry for all the people that have been cut, burnt, poisoned, and bombed because of her warmongering ways and all those who will be.

Walrus

At present, Wall Street share prices say Clinton will win.

The outcome of a Clinton victory is, in the foreign policy environment going to be disastrous if, as expected, the think tanks have their way.

Domestically equally disastrous for the majority if Wall Street has its way.

But wait, there is more.....

Both sides of politics will agree; "never again will we have a Trump!".

Both sides of politics will work together inside and outside the legislatures and party rooms to prevent a loose cannon from ever again getting a party nomination.

Both sides will work together to criminalise whistle blowing, leaking and publication of their secrets a la Wikileaks.

Both sides will work together to redefine the term "journalist" to reduce the volume and reach of uncontrolled media.

Both sides will work together to prevent "non violent extremism" via an implementation of "Big Brother" (Orwellian) surveillance of thought, word and deed, deliberately designed to create a chilling effect on free speech and enforce compliance with the wishes of the government. The Chinese are already implementing such systems. Google and Facebook already seem to be offering themselves as a platforms and at least one Wikileaks email suggests mounting frustration with the American peoples annoying independence among the political class.

My plea to SST members; please do not confuse the term "Liberal" or "leftist" with warm, touchy feely, memories of peaceful gentle hippies. University educated, cultured "Liberals " killed 25% of the population, about three million people, in pursuit of harmony, gender equity, LGBTQ and other socialist wet dreams in Cambodia.

To put that another way do not for one second think that academics or women cannot be worse tyrants then the average man.

I am afraid that many are going to be surprised at the speed with which our doom overtakes us.

God bless all of us.

Frank

I read your first sentence and laughed so hard I choked on my spit a little.

Tel

Yeah, I was just going to point out the same. Those totally unbiased Journalists put up a "Victory for Clinton" headline and right down the very bottom mumbled something about Trump actually having more votes when you add them up.

That's how it's been all the way through with the news media... all in the tank for Clinton and not one of them willing to put forward an honest report.

LondonBob

Better start writing your President Trump article!

Chris Chuba

I think it is good to expose one's self to different points of view.

HRC and the foreign policy establishment are extremely cloistered and they reinforce each other's set ideas. I'd reduce it to, X is a bully, you have to stand up to bullies, bullies will always back down (the Munich analogy). Now this group meets Putin who is not a bully but a patriot who cannot back down because he knows the next battle will be worse. This is now a perfect storm.

I am hoping that this remains an academic exercise, that Trump will win the election, in which case I will thank HRC for her 20yrs of public service and look forward to seeing the good work she will be able to do as a full time leader of the Clinton Foundation.

David Habakkuk

Eliot,

The notions of ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ are rather more complicated than they look. If you simply do not know what you need to know to make the decisions you have to make, however ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ you are, you will make a mess of things.

As it happens, Hillary Clinton is a quintessential embodiment of a pathology which characterises a very large proportion of contemporary American, and – I regret to say – British political élites.

Their whole worldview is based upon readings of the arguments over ‘appeasement’, but they show no indication whatsoever of understanding what these were about.

From a report in the ‘Washington Post’ in March 2014:

‘Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday compared Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine to actions taken by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler outside Germany in the run-up to World War II.

‘Making her first extensive comments about the crisis in Ukraine, Clinton said at a private fundraiser in California that Putin’s campaign to provide Russian passports to those with Russian connections living outside his country’s borders is reminiscent of Hitler’s protection of ethnic Germans outside Germany, according to a report published overnight.’

(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/03/05/hillary-clinton-says-putins-action-are-like-what-hitler-did-back-in-the-30s/ .)

Ironically, the view that Hillary appears to attribute to Putin – that he is likely to want to reincorporate Russians in former Soviet republics which have broken away into a kind of ‘Greater Russian Reich’ – is the precise equivalent of that which many ‘appeasers’ attributed to Hitler.

(I know something about this, because my late father was intimately involved in these arguments. While he became a very active opponent of ‘appeasement’, people he enormously liked and admired were on the other side of the debate. It is a world of civility almost unimaginable today – when people could think those with whom they disagreed were completely wrong, but still respect and like them.)

To suggest that it was self-evidently stupid, at the time, to interpret Hitler’s intentions in this way so many of the ‘appeasers’ did is simply silly. It is critical to remember that some of the most significant supporters of Chamberlain’s approach – Lord Halifax and R.A. Butler in particular – were ‘old India hands’.

These people were indeed ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ about the worlds which they knew well. For them, Churchill was first and foremost the man who had led the opposition to the ‘appeasement’ of nationalist forces in India embodied in the 1935 Government of India act.

Quite correctly, in relation to India, they thought that Churchill’s enthusiasm for confrontation was likely to turn a difficult but manageable situation into a complete and utter shambles.

Moreover, their view was shaped by a view common among genuinely ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ imperialists. All kinds of revolutionary agitators say silly things and write silly books. But when they actually have to confront the real choices involved in the exercise of power, very commonly, they as it were ‘simmer down’.

Accordingly, the view of many ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ people ran something as follows.

The agenda about which Hitler really cares – and here, the ‘Führer’ does indeed speak for the ‘Volk’ – is the reincorporation of ethnic Germans into a Greater German ‘Reich’: that is, precisely the agenda which Hillary appears to attribute to Putin.

In the remarks quoted by the ‘Washington Post’, Hillary concedes that ‘there is no indication that Putin is as irrational as the instigator of World War II.’

This really is ironic. Precisely the assumption that so many ‘appeasers’ made was that Hitler was not sufficiently ‘irrational’ deliberately to risk an all-out confrontation with the British Empire. However, many ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ supporters of ‘appeasement’ were all to well aware of at least some of the ‘irrational’ elements in Hitler.

The ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ conclusion they drew was that, if the British resisted his aspirations to incorporate the Sudeten Germans into his Greater German ‘Reich’, they would be liable to end up with an uncontrollable process of escalation, leading to a re-run of the processes many of them believed had been responsible for the outbreak of war in August 1914.

That war, for them – as it also was for my father, and still is for me – the ultimate disaster.

So, many ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ people – including people like R.A. Butler, whose father and uncle had been governors of Indian provinces – drew conclusions which, crudely, might be summarised like this.

It really is not worth the candle to fight to prevent ethnic Germans being reincorporated into a greater German Reich. If we do so, the likely result – a rerun of the 1914-18 – will complete the destruction of the social fabrics of European societies which the previous conflict largely accomplished.

Of this destruction, the likely beneficiaries will be communists. (Oh yes, and many of those who thought the ‘appeasers’ were utterly wrong had, as it were, imbibed anti-communism at their father’s knee, as I did from mine, and he from his – they simply disagreed with the conclusions the ‘appeasers’ drew from their anti-communism.)

A corollary of this is that people like myself have no difficulty understanding how the ‘appeasers’ read the situation. If the Soviets could successfully keep out of this rerun of 1914-18, they thought, they would be in a position to reverse the retreat of Russian power produced by the outcome of the First World War, and indeed extend that power even further than it had reached when the Empire of the Tsars attained its largest limits.

In relation to the world beyond Europe, some of their thinking sometimes ran something like this: Although we know that in the longer term the European empires in what is now called the ‘Third World’ are unsustainable, their premature end will empower all kinds of problematic people – communists and radical nationalists – before they have had, as it were, a chance to ‘sober up’.

And here, a lot of the errors that many of the ‘appeasers’ made were ones that ‘rational’ and ‘smart’ people could quite easily make. As a result, however, they not only radically misread Hitler – but also Stalin.

Assuming that Hitler’s fundamental agenda was to bring ethnic Germans back into a greater German Reich, they concluded Nazism did not actually pose any kind of ‘existential threat’ to the Soviet Union, and it was unlikely that Stalin thought it did. Accordingly, they went on to conclude that Stalin’s professions of a ‘defensive’ agenda were disingenuous, and concealed his actual ‘offensive’ agenda: to precipitate precisely the kind of rerun of the First World War they so deeply feared.

Ironically, contemporary American ‘neoconservatives’ tend largely to share the same ideological blinkers that made it impossible for the ‘appeasers’ to drew the simple conclusion that very many committed anti-communists, like my late father, drew: that the the only realistic way to ‘contain’ Hitler was to seek alliance with Stalin.

As it happens, if you actually look at what Putin has said and done, it should be absolutely clear that he is not actually attempting to bring ethnic Russians back into a kind of Greater Russian ‘Reich’. As was the case with Stalin in the late ‘Thirties, his fundamental agendas are defensive and reactive. And Putin, whatever his faults, is quite patently not a mass killer like Stalin.

Both the neoconservatives, and Hillary, have learnt all the wrong lessons from the history of Munich, which they completely fail to understand, and have no understanding at all of the lessons of Sarajevo.

They are profoundly ignorant, and therefore profoundly dangerous.

robt willmann

Here is a brief video of Mark Crispin Miller, a "liberal" teacher at the New York University Steinhardt, talking about the issue of voting fraud in the U.S.--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXKr2hKCz0

TV

"Hillary is rational and smart"
If you call her handling of the email mess "rational and smart" you'd better look up the definitions of these words.
If anything, she showed herself to be a cypher mechanically climbing the ladder toward power and money - surrounded by equally dumb and self-absorbed sycophants.
Read some of the emails written by the so-called "smartest guys in the room."
Not only is the "elite ruling class" massively corrupt, they're not bright, just advantaged.
I fear the future in the hands of this soulless, dishonest dummy.

robt willmann

Another question about the lack of Hillary e-mails in the big batch of John Podesta e-mails is whether WikiLeaks is doing some sanitizing and editing on itself.

AK

Please, dear God, can one of you Clinton cultists present me with hard, factual evidence for these assertions? I really want to believe that everything will be ok, but the merciless bitch that is reality keeps telling me otherwise...

TV

If Clinton wins and the Republicans hold the House and Senate, DO NOT count on them making her life difficult.
For the last 6 years their incompetence and (unrequited) love of the lefty media has pretty much shown them to be weak and feckless idiots.
The Republicans' main gesture of opposition to Obama has been bending over.

David Habakkuk

dc,

Picking up on a response to a comment of mine you posted on an earlier thread.

I am not sure my memory serves me right, but I think it may have been you who compared the current situation to what happened when when an ice flow breaks up – the currents and cross currents can send the fragments hurtling in all kinds of different and confused directions.

Something I have found immensely frustrating is that good friends of ours, confronted by the phenomena alike of the upsurge in favour of ‘Brexit’ and Trump, have retreated into a kind of ‘frozen world’.

If they said to me – ‘better the devil you know’ I could live with that and accept it.

But time and again they do not. In the face of the – abundant – evidence of Hillary Clinton’s corruption, incompetence, and recklessness, they simply respond with denial, or idiotic excuses.

And this is among the reasons why I think that, on this occasion, ‘better the devil you don’t know’ is a more relevant maxim.

A nightmare for me has been the possibility that the break-up of familiar alignments will simply produce utterly toxic polarisations.

But, this may not happen.

It is not impossible that people coming from different and indeed deeply antagonistic starting points may find common ground.

Rightly or wrong, it has seemed to me not only that Hillary really is far more likely than Trump to produce a major international catastrophe, but that a breaking out of toxic polarisations is far less likely if she wins.

Castellio

I have not seen her reflect upon or learn anything from anything...

Other than how to get others to pay for influence, and learning to give others what they want when they pay.

Mac

Colonel and Committee,

Thought on the day after if he wins the popular vote but she wins the anti-democratic EC?

Mac

Augustin L

Trumps talks about rigged elections and incites the wounded lumpen to unrest, but make no mistake his camp know exactly where they stand. Brad Parsdale's Alamo big data team knows that if not for rigging they have already lost the election, his team ran all types of projections with various models and always came out on the loosing end. I quote Brad Parsdale's the man running the command center: "we have three major voter suppression operations underway, aimed at white liberals, young women and African American voters.''. Again: ''the aim is to depress Clinton's vote total, we know because we've modeled this out''. In other words, the only path to any competitive outcome is massive voter suppression. The GOP is also looking to purge millions of minority voters to keep the senate and deliver the white house to Trump, but current high voter turnout mirror numbers from 2008 when Barack Obama was elected in a landslide... Here's another quote from the man leading Trump's Alamo Team underligning they are only selling a product to the deplorables (Cambridge analytica's data allows them to intimately know what deplorables want to hear) :'' You have to find out what people want and then convince them why your product is the right one.'' What financial firms own Cambridge Analytica ? I suspect they have another bunker with techies ready to hack into voter tabulation centers to outright change voting results in their favour. The pot calling the kettle black... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go

Can U.S. elections be stolen ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXKr2hKCz0&feature=youtu.be

aleksandar

" Russia will never again fight on its own territory! "
Sergey Karaganov, a personal advisor to President Vladimir Putin

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

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 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad