Queen of Chaos, the misadventures of Hillary Clinton

413 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

"To oppose Trump we must oppose Clinton first" sounds pretty Orwellian to me. Maybe we should just go ahead and oppose Trump and let Clinton oppose him too.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wasn't she supposed to be dead by now?  What with that near-fatal stumble before the election?

It would be so much easier to believe that criticisms of Clinton are being made honestly and in good faith if so very many of them weren't clearly dishonest, and in bad faith.  I think it is, in the words of a former mod, "a bitch hunt".  Clinton is responsible for the state of the Union the way Martha Stewart was responsible for insider trading.

Rev Pesky

From conrarianna:

If Clinton had faded from the scene and no longer represented core Democratric Party orientation, there would be less talk here of her pernicious legacy of war crimes, aggression and sowing chaos worldwide as Sercretary of State.

Her 'legacy' is no different that many other persons, both Republican and Democrat. Remember Condoleezza Rice​? Colin Powell? Madeleine Albright? Henry Kissinger? James Baker? 

Interesting fact: since 1977 there have been almost as many 'acting' Secretaries of State as there has been 'real' Secretaries of State (12 'acting to 13 'real'). What that means to me is that US foreign policy is on autopilot, and has been for a long time. Hilary Clinton was no better, nor any worse, than previous holders of that position.

Further from conrarianna:

Clinton is still very active as a political spokesperson, making statements as if she and the Democratic Party were political saviours rather than the main reason the demagogue Trump gained power.  

Though she is not likely to run again, she is still the media go to person for political opposition to the vile Trump. They could do much better.

Clinton received roughly 3 million more votes than Trump. That hardly equates to 'the reason Trump won'. I think you're saying, 'Clinton didn't win by as much as I think she should have'.

As far as the media, I guess they do things they think will sell advertising. If that means they follow Clinton around, well, there you go. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I'm not dissillusioned by the Democratic Party because I never have thought they were either progressive or lefty. 

If the DNC, represented by its (documented) corrupt selection of Clinton, remains basically unchanged, as it appears to be the case, the Democratic Party will continue to shrink as it has been and if there is another election Trump or another extreme right from the Republican rat-bag will win again.

It is the "shut up about Clinton" Democratic Party supporters that are helping this happen.

The Democratic Party has something called 'superdelegates', that is, convention delegates that are not bound to vote for any specfic candidate based on primaries. Superdelegates are 15% of total convention delegates.

Once all the other Democratic Party candidates had dropped out, leaving only Clinton and Sanders, the die was cast. Sanders had not been a member of the Democratic party. Given a choice of a 'real' Democrat (Clinton) versus a Democrat of convenience (Sanders), there's no way the superdelegates were going to vote for Sanders over Clinton.

Everyone knew about the superdelegates before the process even started, including Bernie Sanders. and after all, political parties are private organizations. They can put forward any candidate they want.

Now, as I pointed out above, I am not disillusioned by the Democratic Party because I knew a long time ago they were neither left, nor progressive. But when commenters start wandering off into la-la land, making very shaky assements of Clinton's comments, going so far as to quote some very Stalinist dimwits like Paul Joseph Watson, I have to wonder what their motivation is.

Like Magoo, above, I think...

 It would be so much easier to believe that criticisms of Clinton are being made honestly and in good faith if so very many of them weren't clearly dishonest, and in bad faith. 

(Sorry for quoting you, Magoo. I hope this doesn't damage your reputation...)

contrarianna

JKR wrote:

"To oppose Trump we must oppose Clinton first" sounds pretty Orwellian to me 

Who said that other than you?
Can you read?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It does get one wondering why you want to oppose Clinton first, tho.

contrarianna

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It does get one wondering why you want to oppose Clinton first, tho.

Are you a professional troll, or a mere amateur? You don't seem original enough to draw a paycheck. Try backing up your usual  BS drivebys with an argument for a change.

cco

Rev Pesky wrote:

and after all, political parties are private organizations. They can put forward any candidate they want.


The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Are you a professional troll, or a mere amateur?

The Olympics is also "mere amateurs".

Quote:
You don't seem original enough to draw a paycheck.

:(

JKR

contrarianna wrote:

JKR wrote:

"To oppose Trump we must oppose Clinton first" sounds pretty Orwellian to me 

Who said that other than you?
Can you read?

I'm glad to hear that I misunderstood you. It actually sounded to me like you thought Hillary and the Democrats were responsible for Trump becoming president! I guess it is obvious that the blame belongs with Trump himself, the Republicans who nominated him, those who voted for him, and the people who've supported him in the media and on the Internet. Glad we got that straightened out.

NDPP

Book Tour Karma? Clinton Compares 'Russian Meddling' to 9/11, Falls & Breaks Toe

https://on.rt.com/8pzk

"Speaking at the Southbank Centre's London Literature Festival Sunday night, Clinton likened Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election to one of the worst tragedies in modern American history: The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center..."

Mobo2000

Re: Watson, infowars and the conspiratorial right.   There is a now familiar but still uncomfortable (to me) overlap between the anti-war left and the Prison Planet crowd.   Some overlap with Antiwar.com / Justin Raimondo as well.   I don't discount what they say out of hand, just keep it in mind that on social issues they can often be quite conservative, sometimes extremely so.   Not a big fan of attacking the source rather than the argument in general, as well.

Josh mentioned earlier the crowd of people who switched from Obama to Trump.   I would think the isolationist appeals, the threats to defund Nato, the reapproachment with Russia that Trump promised in his campaign would have been very appealing to these types.  I bet the people very into Prison Planet/Alex Jones made up a significant portion of those Obama to Trump voters.  

When I was a union steward we had several committed labour activists (who were progressive on social issues) that would continually sent out infowars stuff on our union email distribution list.   The stuff they are selling does have some resonance with people on the left.

JKR:  Contrianna did list several articles by Salon describing the Democratic Party's strategy of Pied Piper candidates.   I'm not sure why it's so important to you that we apportion blame to anyone except his opponents.    I want his opponents to take some blame so that they will perhaps do better next time.

And perhaps you could consider that the policies and positions Trump articulated during his campaign were also a factor in his election.   Why did they resonate with so many people?   Who is responsible for that?   Or would that take us back to thinking 50% of Americans are deplorable?

Rev:   Regarding Clinton as an average/typical Secretary of State.   "We came, we saw, he died" was uniquely disgusting, but I suppose if one goes back far enough we can find all sorts of similar statements by past Secretaries of State.   But by that same criteria, is Trump in your view a particularly uniquely awful president?   Compared to Reagan or Nixon, say?  Even Bush II?   If American foreign policy is run on autopilot (I agree, if you mean the autopilots are the military), what of domestic policy?     

Rev Pesky

cco wrote:
Rev Pesky wrote:

and after all, political parties are private organizations. They can put forward any candidate they want.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

That decision was about primary elections, wherein the Democratic Party was not allowed to have 'whites only' primaries.

So far as I know, no party is forced to hold primary elections. They can pick any candidate they want. 

 

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Josh:

The fact that she was under investigation, rightly or wrongly, showed she wasn't the optimum candidate to run against an "outsider" like Trump.

I don't really like harping on this, but Clinton won the popular vote. More people wanted her as president than wanted Trump, by quite a large margin. It wasn't her 'unelectability' that was responsible for her loss.

It was the Electoral College system in which states award Electoral College votes on a winner take all basis. There's no law that says they have to do that, and in fact some states don't. Individual states are allowed to decide which way they will award the Electoral College votes.

The reason Hilary Clinton lost the election had more to do with that quirk in the system than anything else.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Once all the other Democratic Party candidates had dropped out, leaving only Clinton and Sanders, the die was cast. Sanders had not been a member of the Democratic party. Given a choice of a 'real' Democrat (Clinton) versus a Democrat of convenience (Sanders), there's no way the superdelegates were going to vote for Sanders over Clinton.

Everyone knew about the superdelegates before the process even started, including Bernie Sanders. and after all, political parties are private organizations. They can put forward any candidate they want.

So in a few short days you go from blaming Clinton's loss to Trump on the electoral college, a system that everyone knew about before the process even started, including Hillary Clinton, to defending the superdelegate system because everyone knew about the system before the process even started?

You can't have it both ways.

Rev Pesky

From Cody87:

You can't have it both ways.

And I don't. Knowing something exists, and ascribing outcomes to it are two different things. 

What I am after here is two different 'takes'. One, that Hilary Clinton lost the election because she was so unpopular. In that she got more votes than her rival, that argument doesn't hold water.

Two, that Bernie Sanders was gut-punched by the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders wasn't a Democrat until he decided to run for president, and in fact his career existed mostly because the Democrats agreed not to run against him, back in the day. It's true that the Democrats probably couldn't have won the seats Sanders fought for, but if they had run a candidate, Sanders would never have won.

That the Democratic Party would rather have a Democrat runnning as a presidential candidate than a 'Democrat of convenience' is no surprise to me, and probably shouldn't be to anyone else.

In any case, Sanders didn't lose the race because of the superdelegates. He trailed Clinton throughout, and if the superdelelgates had been disallowed from voting, Sanders still would have lost.

contrarianna

JKR wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

JKR wrote:

"To oppose Trump we must oppose Clinton first" sounds pretty Orwellian to me 

Who said that other than you?
Can you read?

I'm glad to hear that I misunderstood you. It actually sounded to me like you thought Hillary and the Democrats were responsible for Trump becoming president! I guess it is obvious that the blame belongs with Trump himself, the Republicans who nominated him, those who voted for him, and the people who've supported him in the media and on the Internet. Glad we got that straightened out.

OMG Really?

Causality is important.

But,  (this is a "but" obvious to any sentient being) to say A causes B, does not reqiure, or demand, any discussion order. 
B or A, can obviously be talked about in any order.
Is that so difficult? If so, try repeating it a few times.

There are millions of useful legitimate articles that talk only about diasterous results alone, such as: hurricanes, Trump's actions, or the destruction of Lybia.

You bizarrely contend that anyone who talks about causes  is demanding: "You are not ALLOWED to talk about the hurricane destroying Peurto Rico (or Trump on Climate change) because you have not FIRST talked about what caused it."

Yourt bizzare claim exists to detract from evidence that the DNC and Clinton machinations  aided Trump  into office in the first place. 

That Clinton and the DNC  work hard not to take any responsibilty for Trump is as damaging to understanding, AND TO ANY REMEDY, as the claim that global warming is caused by sun spots.  

Clinton however is only too eager to claim causal sequence of what she sees as her greatest State Department triumph. That is, the destruction of Lybia and the the anal rape with a knife killing of Gaddaffi. Her parphrase of Caesar:

"We came, We saw, He died...Ha, Ha, Ha..."
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
 

JKR

contrarianna wrote:

Clinton however is only too eager to claim causal sequence of what she sees as her greatest State Department triumph. That is, the destruction of Lybia and the the anal rape with a knife killing of Gaddaffi. 

Wow! I guess Clinton is much worse than the "queen of chaos!" she's more like the "goddess of evil." But somehow I still think she's just a hasbeen that's become an irrelevant sideshow.

Yawn....

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There is one enemy now...Trump. 

Not Hillary.   

Hillary is simply one former candidate.  It serves no purpose to go after her at all.  

And there is no honest, decent argument to be made for the claim that keeping Hillary out of the White House was more important than anything else...that that objective was worth subjecting the world to this meganightmare.

I dare any of those who saw Hillary as the greater evil, as a menace who had to be stopped at any cost, to come to the States and say to a woman, a person of color, an LGBTQ person, a Muslim-American, or a child in danger of being deported to a country she did not know and has no chance of surviving in-simply because her undocumented parents brought her to the States as an infant when they arrived-I dare any of you to say to ANY of those people, or to the tens of millions of people in serious danger of losing health insurance and never being able to replace it "someday, you'll realize that your suffering is for the greater good, because it was worth it to put all of you through hell to save the planet from Hillary becoming president".

And I dare you to say that to the rest of the world, now that Trump has proved himself to be massively more hawkish and dangerous than Hillary could ever have been.

Yes, she had flaws.  Yes, she had limitations of outlook.  But how can any of you STILL believe those flaws were worth putting Trump in control of the U.S. nuclear stockpile?  How can anyone at this date still even think that Hillary could ever have done anything worse than what is happening now, OR that there is any chance that anything better will happen down the road as a result of what happened in November 2016?

With her contradictions, with her limitations on some issues, it still remains the case that had she won, there would at least have been a guarantee that historically oppressed communities would lose no ground, and progressives in the States would be fighting for gains rather than for mere survival.  Instead, the most vulnerable and powerless people in the States have nothing but unrelenting unchecked oppression and misery, and nothing to hope for in the future in exchange for being put through this now be people who could have prevented it by making one pragmatic vote(and not a vote that even necessarily had to be seen as "pragmatic"; the Democrats ran on the most progressive platform they'd offered for decades, with half the planks straight from the Sanders campaign) for president and voting third-party on the rest of the ballot.

 

Rev Pesky

From Mobo2000:

Rev:   Regarding Clinton as an average/typical Secretary of State.   "We came, we saw, he died" was uniquely disgusting, but I suppose if one goes back far enough we can find all sorts of similar statements by past Secretaries of State.   But by that same criteria, is Trump in your view a particularly uniquely awful president?   Compared to Reagan or Nixon, say?  Even Bush II? 

As bad as those presidents were, none of them did their damndest to incite race war. In that respect, Trump is far worse than any of them, and I don't believe he himself is a racist. I think he's just person whose view is that if he can get everyone fighting against each other it's kind of entertaining, and allows him space to do what he wants to do. No president in my memory, which goes back to Eisenhower, has achieved the level of suppport from the extreme right that Trump has. That by itself is an indication of how bad Trump is.

So yes,  I would say Trump is 'uniquely' bad. 

Further from Mobo2000:

  If American foreign policy is run on autopilot (I agree, if you mean the autopilots are the military), what of domestic policy?     

The military does not run US foreign policy. US foreign policy is run in the interest of capital, the military is only the enforcement arm.

Since the end of WW2, US foreign policy has had one mission, and one mission only, to make the world safe for USA capital. That is what I mean when I say it has been run on autopilot.

There have been disagreements over the best methods to achieve said aim, but there has never been any disagreement (between Democrat and Republican) over what the aim is. In another thread I pointed out that USA foreign policy has not changed through Democratic and Republican presidents, and whatever Trump's rhetoric was, he was not going to change it either.

And guess what, he hasn't. The only enemies the USA has are those countries that infringe on the free rein of USA capital. It is as true now as it was 70 years ago, and continuously since.  

Say, remember Henry Kissinger? Was he better or worse than Clinton? (You don't have to answer that, it  more or less answers itself)

Mobo2000

Rev:   Regarding Trump's unique awfulness / inciting a "race war".   I don't see the racial dogwhistles in Trump's campaign or presidency as new or (even) especially pronounced, compared to say Willie Horton ads or even "superpredators" to take a more recent example.   I think it is obvious there was a concerted effort by the DNC and DNC media to paint Trump as a bigot and a racist.   And there is justification to do this, obviously, but I think the sheer volume and unamity of this effort in the media backfired.   I think the DNC is perhaps sincere in their belief that trump is a racist and bigot, but they talked about that, and not his economic nationalism because they couldn't, as they were the architects of the exporting of the US' manufacturing base.  Trump claims himself to be a nationalist.   There are substantial numbers of people who believe him and support him on that basis, and do not think of him or themselves as racist.    

David Duke once held a seat in Louisiana.   Before that he tried to run as the democratic candidate for president in the 80's.   Now any association between David Duke and Trump (or any other politician) is political suicide.   Something has changed here.   I don't take it as obvious that racial tensions are higher now in the US than any other point since the mid 60's.   It seems to me that a substantial part of US media is interested in exclusively talking about the racial aspects of any issue or event, or action by Trump, as a way to attack him, and I think it is fair to ask if this is also attempting to "incite a race war".   

RE: Foreign policy -- our difference here is largely semantic.   I agree US foreign policy is run largely in the interests of US capital, with a hefty dose of "maintain full spectrum dominance" thrown in for good measure.

Sean in Ottawa

Mobo2000 wrote:

Rev:   Regarding Trump's unique awfulness / inciting a "race war".   I don't see the racial dogwhistles in Trump's campaign or presidency as new or (even) especially pronounced, compared to say Willie Horton ads or even "superpredators" to take a more recent example.   I think it is obvious there was a concerted effort by the DNC and DNC media to paint Trump as a bigot and a racist.   And there is justification to do this, obviously, but I think the sheer volume and unamity of this effort in the media backfired.   I think the DNC is perhaps sincere in their belief that trump is a racist and bigot, but they talked about that, and not his economic nationalism because they couldn't, as they were the architects of the exporting of the US' manufacturing base.  Trump claims himself to be a nationalist.   There are substantial numbers of people who believe him and support him on that basis, and do not think of him or themselves as racist.    

David Duke once held a seat in Louisiana.   Before that he tried to run as the democratic candidate for president in the 80's.   Now any association between David Duke and Trump (or any other politician) is political suicide.   Something has changed here.   I don't take it as obvious that racial tensions are higher now in the US than any other point since the mid 60's.   It seems to me that a substantial part of US media is interested in exclusively talking about the racial aspects of any issue or event, or action by Trump, as a way to attack him, and I think it is fair to ask if this is also attempting to "incite a race war".   

RE: Foreign policy -- our difference here is largely semantic.   I agree US foreign policy is run largely in the interests of US capital, with a hefty dose of "maintain full spectrum dominance" thrown in for good measure.

The tolerance for racism has declined among many since 1988. This is part of the more divided US. As an issue it has increased. and that is a good thing.

And Racism is not the only thing wrong with Trump.

Rev Pesky

Funny you should mention David Duke, Mobo2000, because he did have something to say about Trump:

David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and perhaps the most famous face of the American white supremacy movement, said that while Trump was “untrustworthy” he was also “the best of the lot” running on the GOP side. 

“Immigration is an existential threat for our people in every way,” Duke said during his radio show on Aug. 18. 

“I’ve said from the beginning I think his campaign is good in the sense that it’s bringing these issues to a discussion which we have to have in America,” Duke said of Trump's high-profile immigration remarks. “And he’s continuing to move the envelope further and I think he understands the real sentiment of America.”

..."I'm thinking more and more that this candidacy is a really good thing for us," Duke said. 

Now I don't know about you, but I don't remember any other presidential candidate that got that sort of endorsement from a white supremacist.

As I said above, I don't think Trump is a racist. I do think he likes to incite, and that is different than other presidents. Even George W. Bush, in the wake of 9/11 didn't threaten to stop Muslims from entering the USA. Neither did he refer to Mexicans as 'rapists'.

It is those kind of off the cuff remarks Trump is famous for, and which encourage the extreme right. 

Here are some more instances or extreme right types who feel Trump has 'opened up the debate'.

Trump's White Supremacist Fan Club

The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site, endorsed Trump on June 28. “Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it’s time to deport these people...

Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which promotes the “heritage, identity, and future of European people,” said that Trump was “refreshing.” “Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We’re moving into a new America...

Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group, said Trump was “good” for the white racist cause. “I love to see somebody like Donald Trump come along,” Hill said. “Not that I believe anything that he says. But he is stirring up chaos in the GOP, and for us that is good...

Brad Griffin, a member of Hill’s League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace, has written that his esteem for Trump is “soaring,” and has lauded the candidate for his “hostile takeover of the Republican Party.”

Trump is not a racist, in my opinion. He is a bigotted, narcissistic demagogue. And no, I don't remember any other president (or presidential candidate, even Barry  Goldwater), spending so much time and effort trying to cause trouble.

NDPP

Vengeful in Defeat: Hillary Clinton Fantasizes About WikiLeaks  -   by Binoy Kampmark

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/19/vengeful-in-defeat-hillary-clint...

"The Hillary Clinton mope tour, which should have reached a high water mark, has gone global. In a post-truth world, anything goes, including Clintonian mendacity and delusion..."

josh

Rev Pesky wrote:

Funny you should mention David Duke, Mobo2000, because he did have something to say about Trump:

David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and perhaps the most famous face of the American white supremacy movement, said that while Trump was “untrustworthy” he was also “the best of the lot” running on the GOP side. 

“Immigration is an existential threat for our people in every way,” Duke said during his radio show on Aug. 18. 

“I’ve said from the beginning I think his campaign is good in the sense that it’s bringing these issues to a discussion which we have to have in America,” Duke said of Trump's high-profile immigration remarks. “And he’s continuing to move the envelope further and I think he understands the real sentiment of America.”

..."I'm thinking more and more that this candidacy is a really good thing for us," Duke said. 

Now I don't know about you, but I don't remember any other presidential candidate that got that sort of endorsement from a white supremacist.

As I said above, I don't think Trump is a racist. I do think he likes to incite, and that is different than other presidents. Even George W. Bush, in the wake of 9/11 didn't threaten to stop Muslims from entering the USA. Neither did he refer to Mexicans as 'rapists'.

It is those kind of off the cuff remarks Trump is famous for, and which encourage the extreme right. 

Here are some more instances or extreme right types who feel Trump has 'opened up the debate'.

Trump's White Supremacist Fan Club

The Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site, endorsed Trump on June 28. “Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it’s time to deport these people...

Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which promotes the “heritage, identity, and future of European people,” said that Trump was “refreshing.” “Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We’re moving into a new America...

Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group, said Trump was “good” for the white racist cause. “I love to see somebody like Donald Trump come along,” Hill said. “Not that I believe anything that he says. But he is stirring up chaos in the GOP, and for us that is good...

Brad Griffin, a member of Hill’s League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace, has written that his esteem for Trump is “soaring,” and has lauded the candidate for his “hostile takeover of the Republican Party.”

Trump is not a racist, in my opinion. He is a bigotted, narcissistic demagogue. And no, I don't remember any other president (or presidential candidate, even Barry  Goldwater), spending so much time and effort trying to cause trouble.

 

Bigot?  Racist?  He's at least one of them.

josh

Fascist Putin finds it "deplorable" that Democrats are not giving his client, fascist Trump, the required "respect."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-20171019-story.html

Rev Pesky

From josh:

Bigot?  Racist?  He's at least one of them.

I did say he was bigoted (not 'bigotted' as in my post above. My spelling error.). But I think a more correct charactarization would be totally self-centered schoolyard bully.

Those who have slighted him in some way, real or imagined, are bad. Those who agree with him and praise him are good. Race, politics, religion, gender, don't come into it.

Reminds me a bit of the very self-centered author on a date who spent the evening discussing himself, and then, realizing he might have gone too far said to his date, "Well, okay that's enough about me. Let's talk about you. So what did you think of my latest book?"

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What is the point, at this late stage, in any efforts at all to argue that it's no big deal that Trump is running things?  Isn't it finally time, in this one situation at least, to admit that "there's no difference" thing was bogus?  The Left didn't gain anything from the results in November being what they were.  What happened can't lead to a greater good in the future.  Why even pretend otherwise?

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

What is the point, at this late stage, in any efforts at all to argue that it's no big deal that Trump is running things?  Isn't it finally time, in this one situation at least, to admit that "there's no difference" thing was bogus?  The Left didn't gain anything from the results in November being what they were.  What happened can't lead to a greater good in the future.  Why even pretend otherwise?

I do not think there is consensus on this.

You may be right. And I think a lot of damage through division and promotion of hatred has been done.

 

It is also possible that a backlash may come from Trump that could make things possible that had Clinton won would not have been. I think this part of the story has not happened yet and this all could be a waste or some benefit could come from this.

I can say in my opinion, any benefit was not worth the risk from Trump but that is different from saying that there will not be even  net benefit if we survive Trump and the pendulum swings further back as it usually does after a big shove.

This would not have been my bet but I am not prepared to say that those who bet this way have already lost when the final outcome is still unclear. Particularly the issue is around the environment -- has Trump motivated his opposition to perhaps be more effective coming after him than without him? Maybe. Maybe it is a slim possibility but we do not know yet. That one issue is worth everything -- so long as we survive Trump.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I, too, would have voted for Clinton, but still think there is some hope that the Trump presidency will allow Democratic Party progressives to advance more rapidly than they would have been able to if Clinton were POTUS. But, as Sean says, it doesn't matter if none of us survive the Trump administration.

NDPP

Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth     -    by John Pilger

https://www.counterpunch.org/blogspot.ca/2017/10/20/clinton-assange-and-...

"Smears and tears. Threats and enemies..."

NDPP

Hillary Clinton, Canadian Company At Heart of Controversy Trump and His Supporters Want to Resurrect

http://nationalpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-canadian-company-at-heart-o...

"The 2010 sale of Uranium One to Russian interests - and allegations that Canadian donations to the Clinton Foundation eased its approval in US - has new life..."

SeekingAPolitic...

Hi Hillary supporters rest assured that the DNC is in safe hands.  According to the Young Turks these is a purge of Bernie and progressive representives in the party.  As listened to the clip, to me there were very ugly as talk to the goals and where the donations go too in the DNC.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfFMmBSPT2A

SeekingAPolitic...

I can could not vote in the US election but even today I would vote Stein of over Clinton.  If everyone gave into the lesser evil idea of voting here in Canada there would be no NDP or Green Party.  These two parties keep the liberals and conservatives moving to right.  Without an ograzined party of left which I attach loosely to the NDP there we would no stopping right dogma.  As long the NDP is vilable alternative to ruling LIB/CON front the 2 major parties are leashed from going hog wild in the right direction.  This I think is the greatest reason for the existence/mission of the NDP not its light left approach to policy.  This is the missing block in the US body polikic, IMHO without the NDP in Canada our politics would resmeble in a large way what is happening in the US today.  I have spoken on many occasions the NDP is a useless as a party of the left, but its mere presence guarantes that we political buffer from the US since.  Regardless of the platform of the NDP I will be voting NDP or Green(less likey) until we achieve PR.

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

But I think a more correct charactarization would be totally self-centered schoolyard bully.

Those who have slighted him in some way, real or imagined, are bad. Those who agree with him and praise him are good. Race, politics, religion, gender, don't come into it.

I think this is very accurate.

With respect to the "race war", it is dangerous to presume that this tension started with Trump. Trump channelled tension that was already there, he didn't create it. I make no claim about why racial/cultural tension has risen country-wide in the U.S. in recent years but not in similar cultures such as Canada; something to consider. It is also dangerous to presume both sides have the same greivances - what the left perceives as a looming race war, the right perceives as a looming culture war. There is overlap to some extent but this is why there are many non-white Trump supporters.

Mobo2000

"I make no claim about why racial/cultural tension has risen country-wide in the U.S. in recent years but not in similar cultures such as Canada; something to consider."

Cody:  I don't think it is obvious that there is rising racial tension in the US between lower or middle class Americans.   There certainly is rising discussion racial issues (and charges of racism) in the media.    Do you think DNC media and affilitated NGOs and nonprofits have an interest in highlighting, even exaggerating racial tensions?

Rev:   Pat Buchanon talked a very similar line to Trump as well when he was a presidential candidate.   "The Shining City on the Hill", the light of democracy in Judeau-Christian culture, and so forth.   He was widely considered to be a white supremacist, then and now.   Still can see his stuff on Antiwar.com too, vexingly enough.  I  do not see the current statements of support from white supremacists as particularly significant.   It makes sense they would support Trump, as they supported Buchanon, and unsurprising that the media would highlight their comments of support to create some guilt by association.    I do not think white supremacist organizations such as Stormfront or the Klu Klux Klan have more respect or influence in American society now than they did 20 years ago.   They seem to be pretty widely reviled across the spectrum, no?   

 

Rev Pesky

From Mobo2000:

I  do not see the current statements of support from white supremacists as particularly significant.   It makes sense they would support Trump, as they supported Buchanon, and unsurprising that the media would highlight their comments of support to create some guilt by association.    I do not think white supremacist organizations such as Stormfront or the Klu Klux Klan have more respect or influence in American society now than they did 20 years ago.   They seem to be pretty widely reviled across the spectrum, no?   

The media didn't have to 'create' any guilt by association. The white supremacists created that association on their own. Whether those groups are reviled or not is not the point. The point is a president who attracts their support, even though, as I've said before, I don't think Trump is a racist. The question then is, what is it about Trump that attracts them? Why does it 'make sense' that they would support Trump. It must be something, and if it's not Trump's racism (and I don't think it is), then what is it? 

josh
Mobo2000

Yes, I agree that is a central question.   I think Cody touched on the answer above:

Some people make a distinction between culture and race, and to others culture reduces into race.   Nationalist rhetoric appeals to white nationlists because they see America as a white nation.   And there are idealistic convervatives who believe in "the idea of America",  American freedoms, and/or the supremecy of the American system of government , and sees that idea of "America" as being available to all races.  

I think much of the DNC media conflates the two strategically and opportunistically, and that is to our detriment, as it shuts down dialogue, and it's to their detriment as well, as it didn't work in the last election and I don't see why they think it will now.

Some semi-related thoughts:

The DNC / DNC media wants to avoid any discussion of nationalistic/protectionist trade policies, and the implied criticism of the DNC's past.   They are opposing trump by largely focusing on his character ,  because on his nationlistic issues, they may (and did) lose.   The easiest, best way to do avoid that again is to talk about his bigotry and sexism.

Both the DNC and the Republicans feel that discussion of racial issues benefits them.   DNC's base is mobilized and solidified by racial injustice, and being socially progressive is a key feature of the Democratic Party brand, so it pays for them to continue to assert it's importance.   And the Republican base are hardened in their support because they perceive themselves as unfairly smeared as racists.   In Republican circles, and within Canadian conservatives too I think, there is a sense that individual racism is fading, that 'structural racism' does not exist and/or is a left propoganda term used to avoid giving specific evidence of racial injustice.

I don't agree on your "create" guilt by association comments.   I don't think its generally perceived as fair to blame a politician for all the various things his/her supporters say or do (unless directly urged to do so, which I would argue is not the case with Trump).   I am somewhat alarmed by the "emboldening" rhetoric being floated by the mainstream and some left media.   The principle that one is responsible or guilty for the things ones' supporters say or do can and will be turned on a dime against progressives.  

Mobo2000

Josh:   I agree with you and the Intercept that Trump is personally a bigot / racist.  

Rev Pesky

From Mobo2000:

I don't think its generally perceived as fair to blame a politician for all the various things his/her supporters say or do (unless directly urged to do so, which I would argue is not the case with Trump).

​...The principle that one is responsible or guilty for the things ones' supporters say or do can and will be turned on a dime against progressives.  

Further from same:

Josh:   I agree with you and the Intercept that Trump is personally a bigot / racist.  

From the Intercept article about Trump:

(Trump)...proposed a database to track American Muslims that he himself refused to distinguish from the Nazi registration of German Jews; implied Jewish donors “want to control” politicians and are all sly negotiators; heaped praise on the “amazing reputation of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has blamed America’s problems on a “Jewish mafia”; referred to a black supporter at a campaign rally as “my African-American”; suggested the grieving Muslim mother of a slain U.S. army officer “maybe … wasn’t allowed to speak in public about her son; accused an American-born Hispanic judge of being “a Mexican”; retweeted anti-Semitic and anti-black memes, white supremacists, and even a quote from Benito Mussolini; kept a book of Hitler’s collected speeches next to his bed; declined to condemn both David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan; and spent five years leading a “birther” movement...

How can you reconcile your view that the 'guilt by association' is created by the 'DNC media (whatever that is) and at the same time agree with an article that portrays Trump as a person who actively pursues positions that are pretty much white supremacist bedrock? 

As far as that goes, I don't agree with the article. I don't think Trump has the intellectual capacity to form any kind of a comprehensive world view. I believe he operates strictly on a 'I, me, mine,'  basis.

NDPP

Clinton & DNC Paid Foreign Spy To Collect Russian Kompromat on Trump

https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/922990431322935296

"Even as criminals they're incompetent bozos."

josh

This was known.  As did Jeb Bush.  Opposition research is done all the time.  Working with, or on behalf, of a foreign power isn't.  Good for them for trying to expose Putin's stooge.

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

This was known.  As did Jeb Bush.  Opposition research is done all the time.  Working with, or on behalf, of a foreign power isn't.  Good for them for trying to expose Putin's stooge.

Yeah, at the very least, it was known during the campaign that Trump's GOP primary opponents hired a guy to collect the dossier, and then after the primaries were over, the Democrats put that same guy(with his dossier) on their payroll.  

voice of the damned

^ I think I have to stand corrected here. It was in January 2017, after the election, that the existence of the dossier was revealed to the public. Still, quite a long time ago, in political terms.

SeekingAPolitic...

Tulsi Gabbard was on CNN.  She refused to the be pinned down on the dossiers, Wolf? CNN host asked twice and she refused to support DNC or Clinton.  She did not use DNC speaking points doessier being opposition research nothing to see here.  Trump news interpetued the interview but hoplifuly is a aviable after trump presser

Cody87

voice of the damned wrote:

^ I think I have to stand corrected here. It was in January 2017, after the election, that the existence of the dossier was revealed to the public. Still, quite a long time ago, in political terms.

Assuming what I've read is true, you're correct about what happened, just off on the timing. It does appear that the the dossier project was originally started/funded by Jeb Bush and John McCain, and the DNC/Clintons (at this point, what difference does it make?) took over after the primaries concluded.

It's really funny actually, because Trump people were arguing about if uniparty "RINOs" were behind it or if it was the DNC. Turns out it was both xD

Word is that Manafort may have been a DNC plant as well - and that he did in fact deal with the Russians as a mediator for the Podesta Group in the Uranium One deal. It's been quite an amazing news cycle.

Cody87

Mobo2000 wrote:

"I make no claim about why racial/cultural tension has risen country-wide in the U.S. in recent years but not in similar cultures such as Canada; something to consider."

Cody:  I don't think it is obvious that there is rising racial tension in the US between lower or middle class Americans.   There certainly is rising discussion racial issues (and charges of racism) in the media.    Do you think DNC media and affilitated NGOs and nonprofits have an interest in highlighting, even exaggerating racial tensions?

This is a leading question - I'm stating such to show that I'm aware it's leading and my answer is my own, not influenced by the lead.

First, the second half of your comment:

I believe that the DNC media etc. are actively highlighting and exaggerating quite rare instances of racism against racial minorities when perpetuated by white people, especially cis-het white men. In fact, in the Wikileaks emails John Podesta sent an email saying "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk [sic] was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter," in reference to a mass shooting in 2015 committed by a Muslim man. Every time there is any kind of mass shooting/truck attack/bombing/etc, the establishment media crosses their fingers and thinks "Please let it be a white guy. Please let it be a white guy. Please let it be a white guy..." However, in all fairness, the alternative media (and affiliated groups) are actively highlighting and perhaps exaggerating quite rare (in the U.S.) instances of racism against white people, especially cis-het white men, when perpetuated by cultural minorities. I was very deliberate with the distinction in wording between these two cases. To elaborate:

The DNC media (and others) are perpetuating a stereotype that all white people are racist and committing hate crimes against minorities based on race. Crucially, and this is a major issue if not the major issue, they are trying to sell people the idea that when a white person criticizes other cultures they are doing so because those other cultures are not white. In other words, they are trying to push the idea that white people would be fine with certain other cultural practices (particularly middle eastern practices - for example burkas/hijabs) if only those practices were being practiced by white people. In fact, the white people who are objecting to these practices are almost universally objecting because they object to those practices, not the race of the people practicing them. I hate to say anything nice about the guy, but as a good example, Milo Yiannopolous doesn't hate Islam because Muslims aren't white. He hates Islam because he's gay and knows what would happen to him if he was to be his authentic self in a Muslim majority country. He would have the exact same criticisms if it was white people acting out the same culture. He's xenophobic as fuck, but he's not racist. But every time him or any other white person criticizes Islam or Muslim culture, the response is "you're just secretly racist." Recall something similar happened to Justin Trudeau (of all people) when he said that two major factors in ongoing violence against women was music with hateful lyrics and communities with a lot of absent fathers. The music connection is obvious and there's very interesting statisticis to back up the absent father connection to a whole host of issues including misogyny, but he was just called racist for saying it and so nobody talks about it.

Conversely, the alternative media (mostly Breitbart, Drudge, and otherwise a whole host of influential individuals) will do the exact reverse. They are pushing a counternarrative that every criticism of western culture, even where justified, is a result of anti-white racism (if from a racial minority) or indroctinated white guilt (if from a white person). And where there are cases of what at least appears to be racially motivated crimes against white people, such as the recent church shooting in Tennessee, they will play it up - but, and this is where the left seems not to be paying attention - they play up the cultural differences, not the racial differences. So Breitbart isn't going to say "this african american did X", they will say "this guy from Sudan did X." The alternative media knows that most white people are just not going to buy overt racism. So they push a narrative of "these people are incompatible because they grew up in a radically different environment with radically different beliefs and they've been indoctrinated to hate you and everything you believe - see look at this hate crime against white people." There is a reason why the alternative media wants the west to take Christian refugees from the middle east instead of Muslim refugees. Christian refugees from the middle east aren't any whiter than Muslim refugees, but they have a more compatible belief system with western culture compared with the average Muslim. If they were really that racist, they would just say no refugees. But they say "If we should take refugees, we should take the Christians who are more compatible with our society and are actually a persecuted minority in their home country." The right wing is doing quite well exploiting this strategy because the left has not adapted to it.

So the difference is that for the left (or at least the left wing academics and media) it's about race. For the right it's about culture. And, this is why people on the right and even many centrists believe Trump when he says things like "you can come to America, but you have to come legally" or "I don't see white Americans or black Americans, I just see Americans," etc etc. Because that's what it's about for those who are receptive to Trump's message (it's debatable whether that's what it really is for Trump). And this is somewhat recursive - it would also be a fallacy to say "they just love American culture because America is white so it still just comes down to racism in the end." They don't love German, French, or British cultures, though those are all white long term allies.

With respect to the first part of your comment, I do think racial and cultural tensions have increased among middle and lower income Americans. I think this is a result of propaganda from the media and the government over the past decade at least which is using race and culture to divide the people against each other to cover up their own crimes. The racism comes more from the media and tends to come from left wing sources, while the cultural discrimination tends to come from the alternative right and especially from Trump himself. But both sides are playing the game, and for the same purposes, and both have blood on their hands.

Cody87

Mobo2000 wrote:
  In Republican circles, and within Canadian conservatives too I think, there is a sense that individual racism is fading, that 'structural racism' does not exist and/or is a left propoganda term used to avoid giving specific evidence of racial injustice. 

Further than this. The right believes that individual racism against minorities has fallen so far that it is now less prevalent than racism against the majority. And the right believes that structural or "institutionalized" racism exists - but only exists against white people and sometimes Asians.

It should be so easy for the leaders of the left to deconstruct this narrative and yet it seems that they are deliberately trying to add fuel to these perceptions instead.

NDPP

FEC Complaint Accuses Clinton Camp, DNC of Hiding Trump-Russia Dossier Payments (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/8qnz

"The Federal Election Commission is being asked to investigate 'misleading' payment reports filed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and the DNC in relation to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier..."

 

The British Involvement in the 'Trump Dossier' Needs Further Investigation

https://t.co/OA9GQlHl3h

"We noted back in July that the only relevant 'collusion with the Russians' during the 2016 election cycle was the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton smear campaign against Donald Trump..."

josh

Trust NDPP to take the latest Republican Party line.  

josh

Cody87 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

^ I think I have to stand corrected here. It was in January 2017, after the election, that the existence of the dossier was revealed to the public. Still, quite a long time ago, in political terms.

Assuming what I've read is true, you're correct about what happened, just off on the timing. It does appear that the the dossier project was originally started/funded by Jeb Bush and John McCain, and the DNC/Clintons (at this point, what difference does it make?) took over after the primaries concluded.

It's really funny actually, because Trump people were arguing about if uniparty "RINOs" were behind it or if it was the DNC. Turns out it was both xD

Word is that Manafort may have been a DNC plant as well - and that he did in fact deal with the Russians as a mediator for the Podesta Group in the Uranium One deal. It's been quite an amazing news cycle.

Word is that that is not true.  Word.

It's been known for nearly a year that the dossier was originally funded by Bush's people.  And more recently by Democrats.  That doesn't necessarily mean the allegations aren't true.

Pages