It's not flattery. Unlike some others who have the excuse of being legitimately duped, you understand that what you're saying is false and say it anyway.
It's much worse to mislead than to be misled.
President-Elect Hillary Clinton
Tue, 2016-10-25 11:44
#52
Tue, 2016-10-25 12:11
#53
Clinton Beginning Informal Talks With Congressional Republicans
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/25/clin-o25.html
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has begun back-channel discussions with congressional Republican leaders over the shape of a Clinton administration, according to several reports Monday. Clinton is following in the footsteps of Barack Obama who signaled the essential continuity between the administration of George W Bush and his own..."
Better A Dog Than Hillary Clinton For President Says Haiti Activist
http://www.blackagendareport.com/black_agenda_radio_Oct24_16
"The only reason that Hillary Clinton is not in jail; the only reason that the Clinton foundation is not shut down, is precisely because they were protected by the highest levels of government,' said Daoud Andre, a Haitian community activist and radio host in New York City.
Andre said the Clintons have stolen billions from the Haitian people. 'It's like Barack Obama gave Haiti to the Clintons as a gift,' he said. With regards to this election, whatever is able to stop Hillary Clinton, we have to support that; if it's a dog running against Hillary Clinton, you have to vote for that dog, because of the harm that this family has caused to our people."
Tue, 2016-10-25 12:33
#54
Rule number one of USA politics. Foreign policy will not change no matter who is elected president. This assertion is predicated on the fact that USA policy has not changed siince the end of WW2, through an almost equal number of Democratic and Republican presidents.
So arguing about which candidate will be better or worse (in terms of foreign policy) is pointless.
Vladimir Putin is well aware of this fact, and really could care less who gets elected.
Rule number two. The president of the USA, despite the constant reminders that he (or she as the case may be) is the most powerful person in the world, does not, in fact, have a lot of power. The truth of this is obvious when one contemplates how well presidents have been able to restrict gun ownership, and institute universal medical care. The president is to a large extent a figurehead, very similar to the old Stuart kings of England. They can appoint a cabinet, but beyond that they are at the mercy of Congress.
Rule number three. The real center of power in the USA is the Senate, which is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the democratic world. Two senators from California (39,000,000 pop.), and two senators from Wyoming (586,000 pop.).
The president has little power over the Senate. Even a presidential veto can be overturned by votes in the House and the Senate.
In the case of a person like Donald Trump winning the presidency, where even a large part of his own party hates him like the devil, he would be more or less utterly powerless.
Tue, 2016-10-25 12:59
#55
ikosmos
Two and three are reasonable, and I mostly agree, but number one is completely wrong. Just check the date of November 22, 1963.
Rule number one of USA politics. Foreign policy will not change no matter who is elected president. This assertion is predicated on the fact that USA policy has not changed siince the end of WW2, through an almost equal number of Democratic and Republican presidents.So arguing about which candidate will be better or worse (in terms of foreign policy) is pointless.
Vladimir Putin is well aware of this fact, and really could care less who gets elected.
Putin and his advisors undoubtedly have their favourite. Most think that is Trump. However, Lavrov, the Russian Federation UN rep Churkin, the Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, etc. - including Putin himself - are very strict about expressing publicly any favourite. They know very well what a circus US elections are, and they know too about the Russophobia and neo-McCarthyism in the West today. This is a very significant difference between the US and Russian regimes; the US does not hide its odious desire and attempts at regime change. The Russians have a completely different foreign policy approach - and you can see that in, for example, their scrupulous actions in Syria in regard to Syrian sovereignty, and in backing off from the Iranians when the latter was dissatisfied with Russian actions in Syria (using an Iranian air base, etc. ) . It's really apples and oranges.
Trump is an odious candidate but there are plenty of writers, easy to look up if you so desire, who make the case much better than I can that Hilary Clinton is a much greater danger than Trump when it comes to global conflict and the horrific possibility of wider war with Russia, China, Iran, etc.
Americans will decide soon enough. Well, if the fix isn't in already.
Tue, 2016-10-25 14:07
#56
Well, if the fix isn't in already.
Do you feel Trump is right when he suggests that the election is rigged against him?
Tue, 2016-10-25 15:21
#57
In the case of a person like Donald Trump winning the presidency, where even a large part of his own party hates him like the devil, he would be more or less utterly powerless.
I pretty much agree with this. However, Trump as president would sign all the crazy right wing legislation Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would send him. This would result in the dismantling of the remnants of the New Deal and Great Society programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Food Stamps. There would also be further huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, and probably the conversion of most public schools to for-profit charters. It would be a disaster for all Americans except the economic elite.
Tue, 2016-10-25 17:19
#58
...Two and three are reasonable, and I mostly agree, but number one is completely wrong. Just check the date of November 22, 1963...
Sorry, you're going to have to enlighten me on why that date is significant in terms of US foreign policy.
Tue, 2016-10-25 17:44
#59
In the case of a person like Donald Trump winning the presidency, where even a large part of his own party hates him like the devil, he would be more or less utterly powerless.
I pretty much agree with this. However, Trump as president would sign all the crazy right wing legislation Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would send him...
Paul Ryan doesn't really enter into it in that he is House majority leader. While the House (of Representatives) can initiate legislation, it must also get through the Senate before it goes for presidential approval.
Mitch McConnell is another story. He is decidedly right-wing, but his power is predicated on the Republicans retaining the majority in the Senate. That is by no means a given. The Democrats only need 5 more senators to make them the Majority. Because senators are elected on a state-wide basis, the gerrymandering that typifies Representative elections doesn't work. So there is a reasonable chance that Mitch McConnell will be taken out of the equation. But even if the Republicans retain a majority in the Senate, there are Senators like John McCain who have no interest in forwarding Trumps cause. Because both houses have to pass legislation before it goes to the president, a small group of Republican senators could easily derail any weirdo right-wing crap from the House. Of course, if the Democrats take control of the Senate, a Trump presidency would be reduced to squawking about the unfairness of it all. Imagine Trump trying to get a Supreme Court nomination past a Democratic Senate...
Tue, 2016-10-25 17:56
#60
In my intended hypothetical, a Trump win would save the Republicans from losing the Senate. Also, you have far more faith in the bona fides of John McCain and other supposedly moderate Republicans than I have.
Tue, 2016-10-25 18:32
#61
ikosmos
...Two and three are reasonable, and I mostly agree, but number one is completely wrong. Just check the date of November 22, 1963...Sorry, you're going to have to enlighten me on why that date is significant in terms of US foreign policy.
That's a very obtuse reply. I look forward to a reasoned response.
John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision.10 The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified. These decisions were taken, and even placed, in an oblique and carefully limited way, before the public.Howard Jones makes two large contributions to this tale. One of them is simply range, depth, and completeness. His recent book Death of a Generation is a full history of how the assassinations of Diem and then of JFK prolonged a war that otherwise might have ended quietly within a few years.
Kennedy Vietnam Exit Strategy 1963
Besides the obvious difference in reducing the thousands of deaths, on all sides, the entire trajectory of US foreign policy and, for example, its effect on domestic policy would have been quite different.
Tue, 2016-10-25 19:26
#62
I look forward to a reasoned response.
I look forward to you telling us whether you think Donald Trump is correct, and the election is (or probably is) "rigged".
Tue, 2016-10-25 19:41
#63
Well, ikosmos, I think that your example of the JFK assassination, in which you posit that it was intended to stop his plan to end the Vietnam war, is actually evidence in favour of Rev Pesky's point 1, not against it. Here was a young, intelligent, popular, well-connected president, and even he couldn't really change foreign policy. When he tried to, they killed him. At least they did in your version of events.
Tue, 2016-10-25 20:29
#64
I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.
Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.
...from Michael Moore
...the only way Clinton will win this is through massive fraud at the ballot box...and if so...watch out....the opposition will not take this passively!
Tue, 2016-10-25 20:53
#65
...the only way Clinton will win this is through massive fraud at the ballot box...and if so...watch out....the opposition will not take this passively!
So, she can't win this by getting more votes?
Wed, 2016-10-26 01:05
#66
Leaked Emails Offer Clues to How Clinton Would Govern 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/24/leaked_emails_offer...
Wed, 2016-10-26 03:49
#67
...the only way Clinton will win this is through massive fraud at the ballot box...and if so...watch out....the opposition will not take this passively!So, she can't win this by getting more votes?
Wed, 2016-10-26 17:23
#68
In my intended hypothetical, a Trump win would save the Republicans from losing the Senate. Also, you have far more faith in the bona fides of John McCain and other supposedly moderate Republicans than I have.
Actually a Trump win could cause a shift to the Democrats in the Senate. But regardless of that, I agree the McCain is a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger, but he's got no love for Trump. After what Trump said about him during the campaign it's my opinion that McCain would rather have a root canal than support Donald Trump. Besides which, all legislation starts in the Congress. None of it starts with the president, so regardless of what Trump wanted, he'd have to convince his party to initiate the legislation in either the House or the Senate.
Wed, 2016-10-26 18:58
#69
...That's a very obtuse reply. I look forward to a reasoned response...
To begin with, your hypothesis has a built-in problem. Even if President Kennedy had decided to withdraw troops form Vietnam, it doesn't necessarily mean he was assassinatied to prevent that from happening. In fact, at the beginning of Kennedy's administration there were 900 US troops in Vietnam. By the time of his assassination there were 16,000. To me, that doesn't sound like a president who didn't favour American troops in Vietnam. It's true that he was going to withdraw 1000 troops, but the remaining withdrawal was to take place over two years. Just between you and me, the history of the USA is littered with promises to withdraw troops, promises that were broken without a backward look.
To suggest that Kennedy was assassinated to prevent a troop withdrawal two years in the future doesn't really make a lot sense, given the history of many similar promises that were broken. But even if it was a clear promise, and it was kept, you still have to tie the assassination to that bit of USA foreign policy, and I don't see that anywhere. A much more likely motive for the assassination was revenge for Kennedy's failure to support the Bay of Pigs invasion with USA airforce.
In any case, as Michael Moriarity has pointed out, if the assassination took place to prevent Kennedy from instituting a withdrawal from Vietnam, that rather re-inforces the proposition that a president couldn't, by themselves, change foreign policy.
Thu, 2016-10-27 01:50
#70
"How Can Any True Progressive Stand Behind Clinton Knowing They're on the Same Side as These [Zionist] Neocon Warmongers?"
Thu, 2016-10-27 11:35
#71
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-jerusalem-israel-rally-1.3823618
"I love Israel and honour and respect the Jewish faith and tradition. And it's important that we have a president that feels the same way," Trump said in pre-recorded message in which he played up his connection to Judaism through his daughter Ivanka's marriage to Jared Kushner.
Trump's video message contained no mention of his policy for the Middle East or Israel. But the candidate has pledged to scrap the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program, which was negotiated under U.S. President Barack Obama.
"Together we will stand up to enemies like Iran bent on destroying Israel and her people," Trump told supporters. "Together we will make America and Israel safe again."
Trump has also said previously he would move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would mark a shift in U.S. policy. Most nations — including Canada — do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Thu, 2016-10-27 12:07
#72
Misfit
A president of the United States cannot impose a 35% tariff on car imports from Mexico. NAFTA does not allow it. Decisions like that have to be written into bills first and passed through Congress. It is not going to happen. Republicans other than Trump support NAFTA, and the NAFTA trade dispute board would not allow it either. Trump is talking out his ass and some on this board are suckers by falling for it.
Thu, 2016-10-27 13:32
#73
If Trump was a product of the milktoast gutless neoliberal left, I´d tend to agree...but no trump is a wild card, certainly not beholding to Wall Street.....He will try to protect autoworker jobs in the USA even if he breaks the NAFTA...if he ever gets the chance...he doesn´t wear bullet proof vests for his recreation!
I do not support Trump, and it never ceases to amaze that no one is talking here about the broken system and what and how to change it.....
Thu, 2016-10-27 15:02
#74
Misfit
No one is talking about it because the Republicans and Democrats are both averse to changing the system. And neither is Donald Trump. He is a part of the one percent who has no personal interest in changing anything. Hillary said in the second and third debates that Trump built his hotels with imported steel from China. Trump didn't challenge that. That is not supporting the Pennsylvania steel workers at all. Hillary said that he contracts cheap foreign workers to make his products and he didn't challenge it. Trump is not a solution and neither is the Republican Party. The Democrats and the Republicans are the two dominant parties that have run the country for the last 240 years. Neither of them are going to buck the powers that be. And Trump won't either. He is a phoney hypocrite and nothing more.
Thu, 2016-10-27 15:06
#75
Misfit
Lyraste, this is a progressive board. I cannot believe that you have the gall to come to this board and promote Trump, who runs contrary to every value that this board upholds.
Thu, 2016-10-27 17:33
#76
If Trump was a product of the milktoast gutless neoliberal left, I´d tend to agree...but no trump is a wild card, certainly not beholding to Wall Street.....He will try to protect autoworker jobs in the USA even if he breaks the NAFTA...
The point is that he, nor any other president, can arbitrarily make changes to any trade agreement. Nor can he impose tariffs, regardless of whether there's a trade deal of not.
Trump appears to have the notion that the president can just do stuff, but that is not true. Any change in tariffs requires legislation, and that legislation (in the case of financial bills) must begin in the House, then pass the Senate before the president gets to approve (or veto) them.
The president in the USA really doesn't have much power. Most of the power he does have is persuasive only. Not only that, but the president doesn't really have a lot of authority within the party itself. In Canada, the Prime Minister gets to choose cabiinet members, so has condsiderable authority within the party caucus. Not so in the USA. The real power is the Majority leader in the Senate and Speaker of the House. Both positions are elective, decided by a vote of of the respective members. The president has no say in either case.
All financial bills are started by the Speaker of the House, which, if nothing changes there, will be Paul Ryan. You may have noticed that Donald Trump and Paul Ryan are not exactly on the same page, and I doubt that would change if Trump is elected president.
So Trump can wander around and make all kinds of statements, but in many cases (tariffs, for instance) he has no authority to make any changes. He would have to first go to Paul Ryan and beg his forgiveness. I'll let you deicide the likelihood of that happening.
Thu, 2016-10-27 18:39
#77
Misfit
And Republicans support NAFTA.
Thu, 2016-10-27 18:49
#78
Misfit
And, Trump rose to being a high profile hotel builder by being ruthless and cut throat. He doesn't care about the welfare of others, and certainly not the auto workers in Michigan.
Thu, 2016-10-27 18:56
#79
Misfit
I think that Trump wears more than a bullet proof vest. I think his toupee is bullet proof too.
Thu, 2016-10-27 19:03
#80
I think his toupee is bullet proof too.
Thu, 2016-10-27 23:33
#81
Lyraste, this is a progressive board. I cannot believe that you have the gall to come to this board and promote Trump, who runs contrary to every value that this board upholds.
Except war.
Thu, 2016-10-27 23:37
#82
I think that Trump wears more than a bullet proof vest. I think his toupee is bullet proof too.
Fri, 2016-10-28 01:40
#83
And, Clinton rose to being a high profile politician by being ruthless and cut throat. She doesn't care about the welfare of others, and certainly not the auto workers in Michigan.
This will be flagged, and hopefully the mods will remove it from the thread. One of the things that's absoutely necessary for reasoned discussion is that if someone is quoted, that the quote be exactly what they said. The above quote of Misfit is not what Misfit said. To me there is no greater crime on a board than deliberate misquotation.
If some one says something ridiculous, or even something you don't agree with, you are free to quote their remarks, and make your comments on them. Misquoting them is an outright lie, and cannot be countenanced.
In this case, the lie was easy to spot, but what if the quote ends up on a different page than the original? The reader woudln't necessarily know that the quote was incorrect. And how would you feel if someone misquoted you? Would you think it was fair and reasonable?
Don't do this again.
Fri, 2016-10-28 02:20
#84
Top 5 Clinton Donors Jewish, Campaign Tally Shows
"Haim Saban, George Soros and others..."
Fri, 2016-10-28 03:03
#85
'Silence is Not Acceptable': Indigenous Youth Demand Clinton Take Stand on DAPL
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/27/silence-not-acceptable-indig...
"By refusing to stand against DAPL, Hillary is putting our environment, wildlife, culture and land at risk,' says 16-year-old William Brownhotter. The Clinton campaign reportedly refused to accept their letter..."
Fri, 2016-10-28 08:37
#86
And, Trump rose to being a high profile hotel builder by being ruthless and cut throat. He doesn't care about the welfare of others, and certainly not the auto workers in Michigan.
And, Clinton rose to being a high profile politician by being ruthless and cut throat. She doesn't care about the welfare of others, and certainly not the auto workers in Michigan.
Fri, 2016-10-28 08:38
#87
And, Clinton rose to being a high profile politician by being ruthless and cut throat. She doesn't care about the welfare of others, and certainly not the auto workers in Michigan.This will be flagged, and hopefully the mods will remove it from the thread. One of the things that's absoutely necessary for reasoned discussion is that if someone is quoted, that the quote be exactly what they said. The above quote of Misfit is not what Misfit said. To me there is no greater crime on a board than deliberate misquotation.
If some one says something ridiculous, or even something you don't agree with, you are free to quote their remarks, and make your comments on them. Misquoting them is an outright lie, and cannot be countenanced.
In this case, the lie was easy to spot, but what if the quote ends up on a different page than the original? The reader woudln't necessarily know that the quote was incorrect. And how would you feel if someone misquoted you? Would you think it was fair and reasonable?
Don't do this again.
I agree, so I went back and fixed it.
Fri, 2016-10-28 11:21
#88
¨The point is that he, nor any other president, can arbitrarily make changes to any trade agreement. Nor can he impose tariffs, regardless of whether there's a trade deal of not....¨
People here clearly do not understand the nature of a Trump presidency, let alone the nature of US politics...to say that I support Trump is absurd!
He is a strong man, and with the Obama tradition of presidential decree behind him, he will do whatever, including full powers of a fascist state, not to mention a full support for Zionism and a Greater Israel.........he will break the heart of NAFTA. if he wins, just watch the collapse of the peso. Wall Street is well aware that he will usher in a regime of American sovereigntism vs. corporate globalism...or at least will try...the shadow government of the US will destroy him and the US and the global financial system in the process, mark my words!
It´s just that this process will take some time...Hillary will try to snuff us far more quickly!
Fri, 2016-10-28 13:47
#89
Fri, 2016-10-28 14:28
#90
Misfit
Lyraste, please read on CNN an opinion piece about Trump being a narcissist. Basically, Trump doesn't stand for anything other than what is good for Trump. He has no real policy on anything because he really isn't capable of giving a damn. He has been unable to stay focused and on topic with his own campaign. He is incapable of formulating any policy objectives. He lies about pretty much everything he says and then he lies about his lies and contradicts himself at every turn. Trump stands for nothing except about spewing hate towards those he perceives to be different from himself and those who disagree with him.
Fri, 2016-10-28 15:16
#91
!!!
Fri, 2016-10-28 15:17
#92
Yup Hillary's in big trouble as she only has a 92% chance of winning the election so let's focus on that 8%, eh! 
Hillary Clinton has a 92% chance to win.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-foreca...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html
New emails trouble for hillary.
Fri, 2016-10-28 15:22
#93
CNN...do you mean the Clinton network news...surely you can{t be expected to be taken seriously if you quote CNN.....I suggest you read Wikileaks to see the level of collusion.......I{m sorry this can{t be taken seriously
Fri, 2016-10-28 15:32
#94
Misfit
Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood and now I see. I had no idea that CNN was so disreputable. Thank you for the clarification on the matter.
Fri, 2016-10-28 15:35
#95
CNN...do you mean the Clinton network news...surely you can{t be expected to be taken seriously if you quote CNN.....I suggest you read Wikileaks to see the level of collusion.......I{m sorry this can{t be taken seriously
Can't read Wikileaks. It's illegal. CNN said so. Can't make this stuff up.
"Remember...It's illegal to possess these stolen documents. It's different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you're learning from us."
Fri, 2016-10-28 15:37
#96
Lyraste, please read on CNN an opinion piece about Trump being a narcissist.
Two doozies in one sentence. Impressive.
Fri, 2016-10-28 16:14
#97
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html
New emails trouble for hillary.
Trouble perhaps because some people who hear this may not look fully into the full story. These are emails not written by her. and which apparently have no connection to wilikeaks or the clinton foundation. Perhaps this is in part the FBI coming under pressure from congress.
Fri, 2016-10-28 16:14
#98
CNN...do you mean the Clinton network news...surely you can{t be expected to be taken seriously if you quote CNN.....I suggest you read Wikileaks to see the level of collusion.......I{m sorry this can{t be taken seriously
Can't read Wikileaks. It's illegal. CNN said so. Can't make this stuff up.
"Remember...It's illegal to possess these stolen documents. It's different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you're learning from us."
Read or possess?
Fri, 2016-10-28 16:19
#99
Here we go:
The investigation actually has to do with emails from Anthony Weiner to a 15-year-old.
I suppose it was too hard for the FBI to have mentioned that in the first place, eh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email....
Fri, 2016-10-28 16:26
#100
CNN...do you mean the Clinton network news...surely you can{t be expected to be taken seriously if you quote CNN.....I suggest you read Wikileaks to see the level of collusion.......I{m sorry this can{t be taken seriously
Can't read Wikileaks. It's illegal. CNN said so. Can't make this stuff up.
"Remember...It's illegal to possess these stolen documents. It's different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you're learning from us."
Read or possess?
Bolded for context. I assume it's the same logic as with child pornography. Viewing it is considered possessing it.
Fri, 2016-10-28 16:32
#101
Here we go:
The investigation actually has to do with emails from Anthony Weiner to a 15-year-old.
I suppose it was too hard for the FBI to have mentioned that in the first place, eh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email....
The re-opening of the investigation is a distraction. Wikileaks, Veritas, as well as the two new social media campaigns started by Scott Adams and 4chan are costing Clinton far too much support. Better to reset to a scandal that has no punch left.
Very interesting that there seems to be no more ammo against Trump to use as a distraction.