Trump to win?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

http://nyti.ms/2b2UjMV

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

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

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

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

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

Couldn't agree more.

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

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

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

That is the question everyone I know is posing.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

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

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

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

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

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

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

Sanders remains antiwar, Hillary a pro-war neocon.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

You know what else is a joke, the assertion that Clinton is moving left and adopting the Sanders platform....Asserting that Clinton is moving left toward Sander's voters is magical thinking at best. Nothing in the campaign and the post-primary supports this belief. They are on opposite sides o[f] the war, trade, the banks and Wall Street.

Sanders remains antiwar, Hillary a pro-war neocon.

The reason the Democratic platform remains largely unchanged from the Obama years with regard to defense is precisely because Sanders is only slightly left of HRC in this area.

With regard to Wall Street, I prefer voting for a party that will state in their platform, (see pg 11), that Wall Street must be reigned in and that trade deals must benefit American workers, (see pg 13).

I don't believe you read my post. I did not say HRC is moving left, she must be made to adopt the platform through continued non-violent political and social action. If the left really wants to limit US foreign adventures over the next four years, it will take protest. Millions of people have to care enough to make any of these changes possible.

If Sanders supporters just go back to work after the election, not much will change and it will be Obama term three. It's not the best outcome but as you know, I don't think that's the worst outcome.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

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

actually i DON'T think you could make a video that extreme at a hillary event. to my knowledge, although hillary supporters may compare trump to hitler, they don't commonly call for his incarceration, let alone his execution. nor am i aware of epithets more extreme than "fascist" which, although extreme, is not quite at the level of hatefulness as the "nigger" slur hurled at the mention of obama.

if you know of behavior at this level occurring at hillary rallies, i'd like to see links documenting it.

this is not to defend the ny times - i do not think it is unbiased; i don't trust its reporting. but that fact that the video was compiled by a biased source doesn't mean it's wrong; it just means that it may be unbalanced. do you think the video was staged by the times? or do you really believe that a hillary rally would be comparable? if so, again, i'd appreciate pointers to the documentation.

if anyone here knows of a general news source that they consider unbiased, i would appreciate hearing about it.

btw, this is not to be construed as expressing any love for hillary. i am in fact famous within my family for how much i've despised her since the early-mid 1990's. give the unfortunate choice with which we are faced this year, however, i reluctantly prefer her.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

actually i DON'T think you could make a video that extreme at a hillary event...

I think you know the value of these man on the streets interviews. The interviewer begins with an end in mind and leads people to say what it is s/he wants said. And after some editing, voila!

I absolutely could create a video like this at a Hillary event, or any event anywhere, really. Time and editing is all it takes.

I hope folks will be less credulous of this sort of stuff, but I doubt it. And good luck finding a non-biased general news source.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

I think you know the value of these man on the streets interviews. The interviewer begins with an end in mind and leads people to say what it is s/he wants said. And after some editing, voila!

I absolutely could create a video like this at a Hillary event, or any event anywhere, really. Time and editing is all it takes.

I hope folks will be less credulous of this sort of stuff, but I doubt it. And good luck finding a non-biased general news source.

the video clips were NOT interviews. thus there is no potential bias from leading questions. i still doubt you could "create a video like this at a hillary event": naturalistic footage, no interviewing, just observation. again, if you are aware of any documentation to support your assertion, please point it out.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

The reason the Democratic platform remains largely unchanged from the Obama years with regard to defense is precisely because Sanders is only slightly left of HRC in this area.

With regard to Wall Street, I prefer voting for a party that will state in their platform, (see pg 11), that Wall Street must be reigned in and that trade deals must benefit American workers, (see pg 13).

I don't believe you read my post. I did not say HRC is moving left, she must be made to adopt the platform through continued non-violent political and social action. If the left really wants to limit US foreign adventures over the next four years, it will take protest. Millions of people have to care enough to make any of these changes possible.

If Sanders supporters just go back to work after the election, not much will change and it will be Obama term three. It's not the best outcome but as you know, I don't think that's the worst outcome.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Read every word, but forgive me if I don't do the same for the link you provided.

You assert that she has adopted "the Sanders platform." If one adopts the Sanders platform, that necessitates moving left. I reject the assertion that she is doing either.

SF, this is pure revisionism, with a bit of gaslighting for entertainment value. First the commissar walks beside Stalin, next he is made to disappear.



Sanders wants to cut defense spending and HRC wants raise it. HRC wants to expand the wars, Sanders wants to end them. Hillary takes millions from Wall Street and is Wall Street's candidate, but she want to reign it in. Hillary supports the TPP, but helped write it and wants trade deals to benefit workers.

And of course you recommend the left to protest. Look how effective the worldwide protests leading up to the Iraq War were, never mind the protests before, during and after the DNC convention. As long as the left is marching, chanting, they can be safely ignored. But, God, just please don't let them vote their interests. I think that's pretty much done, don't you?

Get ready for President Trump.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

But you do have this evidence of attacks on Republicans at campaign events:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...outside-rally/

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/r...entral-Pa.html

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

And wackos on the right attack Bernie:

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


There are nut cases on both sides of the political spectrum, and there is ample evidence as I posted above. It took me two seconds to find this on google.

We have a very biased propaganda, oops I mean press,on both sides of the political arena. We are divided and have little hope of finding common ground with these two unfortunate choices we are left with.