supporters. Clinton Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome, of which there apparently is no cure. She is a sociopath for sure and hopefully it will get the best of her before she gets into the oval office.

Agree! I have long been interested (or at least back when I was feeling better, lol,) in the work of Dr. Robert Hare on psychopaths, although the associated traits used in his questionnaire (haven't read up on this for several years, this may have been refined, plus I'm just starting to caffeinate, lol,) were (as I recall) originally developed by studying imprisoned psychopaths so that various of the associated characteristics then used may not have applied to the most successful psychopaths bolstered by money and power.

The defining characteristics of psychopathy, in my view, are the complete lack of empathy and the inability to see beyond their own egos and wants, to be achieved at any cost to the unimportant others used and abused, the suffering from which abuse may be pursued as enjoyable in itself, especially where the victim has stood in their way - or failed to support them; like corporations, they are incapable of human feelings and often cannot understand that they may themselves suffer consequences as a result of their own actions, as with the TPP et al, ultimately destructive of everyone and everything involved, (including the ever-more-rapidly-even-at-current-rates failing life support system of the Earth, due to industrial/military pollution/destruction) and likely in very short order.

The vindictiveness of the inner circle of Hillary's team is legendary - like attracts like, and in this respect, at least, psychopaths are much like anyone else. She would be far worse than Bush, even if Bush did initiate the corporate coups promoted by Hillary as 'trade deals'. She is far more petty, not to mention likely to expose vulnerable agents to hazard without even the intention at getting back at an agent's spouse for crossing her, but simply due to her consistently displayed poor judgment/carelessness ('I, myself, am untouchable and can do as I please; the consequences always must naturally fall on expendable others') ranging into recklessness and beyond, as with her destructive actions regarding the TPP, donor-promised attacks on other countries and fracking.

Clearly, neither the current Dem presumptive nominee nor the Republican candidate are, shall we say, feasible; failing a miraculous Bernie save, a concerted effort among the aware to vote Green, with carefully laid plans to oversee elections and to record and sue over all indications of voter suppression and electoral cheating, would appear to form the last opportunity for a bloodless political revolution toward democracy in America before control of domestic law in all industrialized countries is officially handed over, by a corrupt new President's acceptance/ratification, to off-shored corporate courts interested only in maximizing the claimed-as-anticipated profits of all of thousands of involved corporate interests and billionaires/multi-millionaires in all countries betrayed into such hostile corporate take-overs and thereafter 'legally' existing only for the purpose of such self-interest's profiteering, at the ultimate cost of life on the planet.

I wouldn't like to bet on anyone having even faked elections among selected corporate management once domestic law and public policy are 'legally' (via unconstitutional private agreements to dispossess The People of their inherent and entailed right of democracy and to commit them to essentially existing only to supply the desired corporate/billionaire profits, at the cost of their health, lives, environment, future and democracy, this presumably to be supported by a predominately 'corporate-friendly' US Supreme court) to be determined only by the greed of any/all of thousands of corporate/billionaire interests squabbling over the remaining scraps on the dwindling corpses of what had been industrialized democracies around the world.

We already know what happens in countries where the people are not protected against corporate depredation - once this has been made 'legal' and global, and with no hope of recourse for any public/country, it then comes down to the wrong sort of last-ditch revolution, the kind we really need to avoid. But in some cases, it seems almost as though, like some pathological Kings of old, some would wish the slaughter of those they view as their servants/serfs to occur at or before their deaths, if not to serve them in some mythical hell, at least to have as their only purpose that of serving them in the hell they created in life, and in this current situation, actually assure that life itself will not long survive their own passing. Keeping them - whether politicians, billionaires or multi-millionaires - out of power and away from public policy decision-making ought to be recognized as imperative. And - apart from Bernie - the Greens are the only democratic option remaining in this US election. Even if the first bout of blatant electoral cheating is (yet again) to be left to stand???!!! the 2nd attempt cannot be, and the American public is now better equipped to understand what they're dealing with.

The more I watch Hiilary -- despite trying my best to ignore her -- the more I see Dick Nixon in a pantsuit. The indicia of a paranoid style are everywhere, despite all the well-produced propaganda meant to conceal it. I fear that if she wins in November she will be impeached, and she will richly deserve it.

Maybe a second, successful Clinton impeachment, taking down all the hangers-on and the financiers behind them, will be the event that finally kills this DLC Democratic Party. Since the Republicans are not fit successors, Hillary may ironically become the mother of a new politics.

yet she keeps having to say "hindsight is 20/20" to explain her glaring mistakes. She surrounds herself with only syncophants who only praise her. It's a narcissistic echo chamber and nothing pierces it.

That, right there, is a recipe for disaster in a presidency.

http://www.immelman.us/news/behind-the-clinton-e-mails-the-psychological...

Following is a collection of research reports and related political analysis, conducted between 1999 and 2008, that may have a bearing on the matter in terms of Hillary Clinton’s personality traits, psychological motives, and leadership style.

This piece is among those listed:

‘Monster’? The Darker Side of Hillary Clinton’s Character

By Sarah Moore and Aubrey Immelman
Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics
March 8, 2008

Last Friday, Samantha Power, a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, made headlines by declaring Hillary Clinton “a monster.” In an article in a Scottish newspaper, Power was quoted as saying, “She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything” (“‘Hillary Clinton’s a monster’: Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview,” The Scotsman, March 7, 2008).

Power resigned within hours of her gaffe hitting the headlines. “I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign,” she wrote in a prepared statement.

Clearly, the ad hominem nature of Power’s personal attack was tasteless. However, should the substance of her tactless statement be brushed off summarily, or does it have a grain of truth that warrants closer examination in the public interest?

The present analysis is part of a series of nearly 30 analyses of political candidates — four of them dealing with Hillary Clinton — published in the Times since the 2000 election cycle by research collaborators at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University.

Darker qualities

As noted in two recent articles in the series (“Does Clinton have only 1 card to play?” Feb. 26, 2008; “Clinton, Obama show their strengths,” Mar. 4, 2008), Clinton possesses qualities that could make her an effective leader. However, she also has personality traits (not highlighted in previous reports) that reveal a darker, Machiavellian side.

Three studies of Clinton conducted at the research unit in the past decade have identified, with consistent results, the core features of her personality.

Clinton’s profile contains a cluster of three prominent patterns: a dominant, controlling tendency (aggressiveness); an ambitious, self-serving tendency (narcissism); and a conscientious, dutiful tendency (obsessiveness).

Also of note, Clinton’s profile shows quite a high level of distrust and a relative lack of outgoing and accommodating features, suggesting a deficit of warmth and congeniality.

For more insight into Clinton’s character, let’s take a closer look at the three core qualities of her personality.

Dominant and controlling

Dominant individuals are tough, unsentimental, strong-willed, assertive, and outspoken. These qualities have many positive aspects; for example, speaking out and standing up for what you believe in, easily rising to leadership challenges, holding your ground, and demonstrating unflinching courage in the face of opposition.

However, these traits potentially have a more sinister side; the dominant tendency also reflects a strong drive for power and the expectation that their authority should be unquestioned. In addition to being coercive, these personalities tend to be unempathic, stubborn, and inflexible.

When pushed on personal matters, highly dominant leaders are prone to respond vindictively, especially when feeling humiliated or belittled. They are quick to attack when provoked or challenged and their first inclination is to dominate and demean their adversary.

Clinton has been portrayed as a no-nonsense individual who likes to take charge, is not easily intimidated, and often inspires respect — even grudging respect inspired by fear.

In his book The Choice (1996), Bob Woodward wrote that Clinton occasionally “snapped at people, even blew up, providing a momentary glimpse of inner rage. She seemed angry … [and] often seemed not to recognize when she was hurting people.”

Woodward’s observation offers a glimpse of someone who needs to be in charge, does not easily tolerate dissent, and lacks empathy for others.

Ambitious and self-serving

In moderation, personal ambition also has positive aspects; for example, boldness, competitiveness, and self-assurance. But the self-confidence of ambitious leaders readily shades into arrogance, a sense of entitlement, and an air of superiority — and they often act as though entitled.

After interviewing many of Clinton’s associates for a 1994 article in New Yorker magazine, Connie Bruck concluded, “In the end, the sureness about her own judgment — at its extreme, a sense that she alone is wise — is probably Hillary’s cardinal trait.”

Similarly, political scientist and psychoanalyst Stanley Renshon wrote in High Hopes: The Clinton Presidency and the Politics of Ambition that one aspect of Hillary Clinton’s character that stands out is her confidence in herself, her positions, and her work — resulting in a sense of entitlement, “a tendency to not want to be bound by limits that apply to others.”

A distrusting nature

Clinton’s elevation on the “Distrusting” scale of the personality inventory used at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics to evaluate political leaders is unusually high relative to other candidates studied in the last four presidential election cycles.

Distrusting leaders — especially those who also happen to be highly dominant and ambitious — tend to be thin-skinned and hypersensitive to perceived slights; vengeful, with a willingness to “balance the books” with respect to perceived past wrongs; prone to “us versus them” thinking; self-righteous, acting arrogantly and with a sense of entitlement; and self-justifying, viewing their attacks on adversaries either as defensive necessity or as “payback.”

For example, Clinton was reportedly the central figure in the 1993 White House travel office dismissals, in which scores were ruthlessly settled.

Gail Sheehy, in her book Hillary’s Choice (1999), had this to say about Clinton’s view of the world: “Her view of humanity is that mankind was born selfish and unruly and must be channeled. … Politics was the means. She even admitted that she couldn’t identify with the ‘faceless masses.’ She sounded … elitist, privileged, distrustful of the people.”

So, Clinton may have a Hobbesian, dog-eat-dog view of the world, but that doesn’t justify the gratuitous demonization of pejoratively branding her “a monster.”

That said, last December, former president Bill Clinton warned that to elect Obama would be “to ‘roll the dice’ for America.” By the same token, as we contemplate the prospect of the second Clinton presidency in a generation, it behooves Americans to ask themselves if they are willing to take a gamble on another Clinton.

When Harry Truman said "the Buck stops here" meaning with him, although literally meaning money, it really meant taking responsibility for whatever decisions were his, The President being the ultimate arbiter of Executive duty and responsibility. The "buck" referred to in the above comment by WI58 is appreciated as referring only to the Buck being a monetary entity. In that interpretation, I fully concur.
But as P.L. so aptly points out with assists from several of other commentators above my comment, Hillary's psychopathic desire for both financial enrichment and any other means of self-aggrandizement will only be strengthened by opposition. When people say "no" to her, or merely balk at her commands, she becomes more insistent on obtaining her exact, precise demands. She is the epitome of "I want what I want when I want it". Hillary as the ultimate boss (President / Queen) will be so emboldened by her almost absolute power, that she will brook absolutely NO DEVIATION from her commands--they will not be requests. That trait will be the very reason she will start war(s) because any nation so impudent as to disagree with her plans will (not may) feel the extraordinary military might the U.S. possesses.

But it is this very trait, when combined with others she posses, is actually her Achilles Heel if her opposition is adroit enough to perceive it.

Prime example of her response to opposition, no matter how polite and / or reasonable is to become progressively more intransigent vis-a-vis her treatment of Bernie Sanders. The smear campaign is not what I refer to, though it is a typical Clintonian action style. Even "stupid, negligent" Hillary must be aware of her desperate need to unify Berners behind her, that she should have been playing "nice" and at least sounding conciliatory to Bernie's millions of supporters. Yet despite a cognitively logical need for such an approach, her emotional need is not to placate her opposition--but to smash it.

If Bernie keeps the pressure on by staying in the fight to the convention, this vexation will continue to enrage Clinton. Funny thing about psychopaths, once they are cornered, they reveal themselves to be very thin-skinned about criticism, even though they care naught for the feelings of others. And here is the other blade of the pincers slowly crushing her: this blade actually has at least three parts (maybe more). One is the incipient perjury investigation just initiated. Two is the ongoing FOIA lawsuit by JW. Third may be Comey finally getting incensed about Hillary turning on him after he abrogated his responsibility to indict her.

I would imagine that the physical strain on Clinton must be enormous. First she jet-sets all over the country several times a day, every day, She has to beseech donors to throw more money at her and/or her "Charity". Even for an entitled witch like Hillary, convincing Banksters to part with more money must still take an emotional toll on her. She is no "spring chicken"--in fact, she is an old vulture who has already suffered a concussion and a stroke. She is after all only 5 years younger than Bernie.

So, Medusa may be forced by circumstance to look in the mirror--and thus turn to stone and crumble--maybe she is crumbling now.

She's possibly the most charmless persona on the national stage today (including Trump).

I wouldn't know about #s6-8.
#2, #3,#4, and #5? Oh hell yeah.

It's cheaper than going for therapy.

This concerns me very much.

Not to mention the industrial/military pollution/destruction-created and snowballing die-off and collapse of the natural life-support system, (with even the ocean currents, a major oxygen producer, slowing) so that at current rates (pre-TTP-type-global-corporate coup) it's been estimated that the Earth will likely be unable to produce enough oxygen to support life within about 90 years, meaning trouble long before this.

This will occur faster, of course, when corporations and billionaires are 'legally' entitled under Trojan Horse 'trade deal' hostile corporate take-overs of all industrialized democracies to do whatever they want in and to all involved people and countries for their own maximized profits - which the people are then purportedly under this obliged to supply, one way or another, at the corporate/billionaire's own anticipated rates, even when it directly kills them - and can simply sue the people of all countries into bankruptcy in order to rob and pollute with absolute impunity.

(The [undated] following does, however, claim that steadily worsening issues are 'completely natural' and not caused by humans, despite the pollutants continually poured into the oceans and other water sources, to the point where something I read some time back had found that isolated areas thought to be pristine were industrially polluted by the poop of nesting seabirds consuming industrially polluted fish.)

http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/oxygen/

Oxygen in the ocean

> Scientists have been routinely measuring oxygen concentrations in the ocean for more than a hundred years. With growing concerns about climate change, however, this parameter has suddenly become a hot topic. Dissolved oxygen in the ocean provides a sensitive early warning system for the trends that climate change is causing. A massive deployment of oxygen ­sensors is projected for the coming years, which will represent a renaissance of this parameter. ...

...Photosynthetic production of oxygen is limited, however, to the uppermost, sunlit layer of the ocean. This only extends to a depth of around 100 metres and, because of the stable density layering of the ocean, it is largely separated from the enormous underlying volume of the deeper ocean. Moreover, most of the oxygen generated by the primary producers escapes into the atmosphere within a short time, and thus does not contribute to oxygen enrichment in the deep water column. This is because the near-surface water, which extends down to around 100 metres, is typically saturated with oxygen by the supply from the atmosphere, and thus cannot store additional oxygen from biological production. In the inner ocean, on the other hand, there is no source of oxygen. Oxygen enters the ocean in the surface water through contact with the atmosphere. From there the oxygen is then brought to greater depths through the sinking and circulation of water masses. These, in turn, are dynamic processes that are strongly affected by climatic conditions. (Chapter 1). Three factors ultimately determine how high the concentration of dissolved oxygen is at any given point within the ocean:

The initial oxygen concentration that this water possessed at its last contact with the atmosphere.
The amount of time that has passed since the last contact with the atmosphere. This can, in fact, be decades or centuries.
Biological oxygen consumption that results during this time due to the respiration of all the consumers. These range from miniscule bacteria to the zooplankton, and up to the higher organisms such as fish.

The present-day distribution of oxygen in the internal deep ocean is thus determined by a complicated and not fully understood interplay of water circulation and bio­logical productivity, which leads to oxygen consumption in the ocean’s interior. Extensive measurements have shown that the highest oxygen concentrations are found at high latitudes, where the ocean is cold, especially well-mixed and ventilated. The mid-latitudes, by contrast, especially on the western coasts of the continents, are characterized by marked oxygen-deficient zones. The oxygen supply here is very weak due to the sluggish water circulation, and this is further compounded by ­elevated oxygen consumption due to high biological productivity. This leads to a situation where the oxygen is almost completely depleted in the depth range between 100 and 1000 metres. This situation is also observed in the northern Indian Ocean in the area of the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. Different groups of marine organisms react to the ­oxygen deficiency in completely different ways, because of the wide range of tolerance levels of different marine animals to oxygen-poor conditions. For instance, crustaceans and fish generally require higher oxygen concentrations than mussels or snails. The largest oceanic oxygen minimum zones, however, because of their extremely low concentrations, should be viewed primarily as natural dead zones for the higher organisms, and by no means as caused by humans. >

(Note date here - this has long been known.)
http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/ocean-adead-zonesa-increasing...

Ocean "Dead Zones" Increasing: 400 Oxygen-Deprived Areas Now Exist

Mat McDermott

Science / Natural Sciences
August 15, 2008

Every year the topic of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico seems to pop up on TreeHugger—most recently in a report which links expanded corn production to the increasing size of the zone. New research shows that it's not just in the Gulf that ocean dead zones are expanding but throughout the world.

Dead Zones Have Doubled Every 10 Years Since 1960s
According to the study, the number of marine dead zones—areas which are periodically or permanently starved of oxygen—has doubled every 10 years since the 1960s, with those along coastlines increasing in size and intensity. Currently there are about 400 coastal areas, with a combined area larger than the size of Oregon, with such poor water quality, with so little oxygen that only microbes can survive in it. Fish and crustaceans must flee the area or die.

Fertilizer Run-Off, Sewage Worsen the Problem
The reason for the increase? The predictable culprit of human activity. ...

https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/climate/oceanic-continental-margin-...

Oceanic Continental Margin Dead Zones Emerge as Threats to Coastal Waters

Posted on June 4th, 2015 (1 year ago) in Changing Temperature & Hydrology, Climate Impacts, Coastal Pollution, Ecological Forecasts & Tools, Ecosystem Management, Hypoxia & Eutrophication, Ocean Acidification, Sponsored Research, Vulnerability Assessments

Declines in oxygen levels of coastal waters have accelerated in recent decades creating “dead zones” not only in more publicized nearshore areas but in open ocean offshore regions of the continental shelves and slopes. Once treated as separate phenomena and distinct fields of study, scientists now see offshore and coastal hypoxia as interconnected, resulting in complex ecological responses. ...

... Both coastal and deeper ocean hypoxia are predicted to worsen with increasing global temperatures.

Nutrient-enriched coastal dead zones can worsen oceanic hypoxia and vice versa. Increasing coastal primary production of phytoplankton fuels microbial decay and respiration in deeper offshore waters, worsening oceanic hypoxia. Likewise, wind-induced upwelling related to atmospheric warming is bringing hypoxic waters to nearshore areas. As a result, areas of continental margins, shelves, and estuaries that were previously well-oxygenated now experience seasonal or sporadic dead zones. ...

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_looming_oxygen_crisis_and_its_impact_on_w...

05 A

ug 2010: Analysis
A Looming Oxygen Crisis and
Its Impact on World’s Oceans
As warming intensifies, scientists warn, the oxygen content of oceans across the planet could be more and more diminished, with serious consequences for the future of fish and other sea life.
by carl zimmer

... While fishes and other animals with high oxygen demands suffer, jellyfish may thrive. Jellyfish can tolerate lower oxygen levels than fish, in part because they can store reserves of the gas in their jelly. Free from competition and predators, jellyfish will be able to feast on the microscopic animals and protozoans that feed on algae. They may thus leave more food for bacteria, spurring a further drop in oxygen levels.

A drop in oxygen may also cause the ocean's bacteria to change. Bacteria that need oxygen will no longer be able to thrive in oxygen-free zones of the ocean. But these dead zones will foster the growth of many species of bacteria for whom oxygen is toxic. Some of these oxygen-hating microbes produce nitrogen compounds that are among the most potent greenhouse gases ever measured. In other words, a drop in oxygen levels could further intensify global warming. ...

But the die-off and Arctic melt/warming is proceeding much faster than was anticipated - life is interdependent as well as complex, having evolved over billions of years through trial and error eliminating previous fatal genetic traits/behaviours without previously entirely destroying developed life itself in the process - and when too many of the threads of the web of life have been torn out, there can be no repair.

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/lifestyle/article/2000184261/global-warmi...

Globa

l warming could destroy Earth by 2100, scientist claims By Mirror Updated Wed, December 2nd 2015 at 11:49 GMT +3

... Climate change could disrupt the production of oyxgen and wipe out humanity within a century, a British scientist has claimed. Terrifying new research has found that global warming has the potential to stop tiny ocean-dwelling phytoplankton from producing enough oxygen to sustain life on planet Earth. Sergei Petrovskii, professor in applied mathematics at the University of Leicester, said a temperature increase of just six degrees celsius could spell doom for our species. Worryingly, some extreme predictions of the effects of global warming have suggested this temperature hike could happen by 2100. “About two-thirds of the planet’s total atmospheric oxygen is produced by ocean phytoplankton – and therefore cessation would result in the depletion of atmospheric oxygen on a global scale," wrote Professor Petrovsk

ii. ...

We need to begin the shift away from fossil fuels and end fracking now - not continue the race to predictable disaster.

http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/ocean_oxy_karen_vt.html

Clima

te Emergency Institute
Climate Science Library
​​Ocean Oxygen Decline
​Karen Villarante-Tonido, Philippines
​Original Post: March 18, 2012

I. ​​Introduction

​​The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to unabated carbon emissions have been given much attention in recent years because of its major impact on global temperatures, climate, ocean chemistry, etc. Recently, it has also been reported to affect the level of oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere. Dr. Ralph Keeling estimated that about three O2 molecules are lost every time a single CO2 molecule is produced by fossil fuel combustion (Johnston, 2007). A 0.0317% decline in atmospheric oxygen has been recorded thus far (for the period 1990 to 2008) (Klusinske, 2010).

​​Fortunately, the world’s oceans (which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface) function as an efficient carbon sink. They absorb about half of the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (Sabine et al., 2004), thereby buffering the effects of excess atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately however, this is not without consequence to ocean chemistry. Elevated atmospheric CO2 have been reported to cause ocean warming, acidification and recently, the decline in ocean oxygen levels. ...

... III. Causes

​​Global warming and consequently, ocean warming causes a decline in dissolved oxygen for two reasons. First is that the solubility of oxygen decreases as the ocean waters get warmer. In fact, zones of low oxygen in the ocean were found to be contracted in cold periods and expanded in warm periods based on geological records (Conners, 2011). Second, warm ocean waters are more stable, thereby slowing down the “ocean’s thermohaline ‘conveyor belt’ circulation system that…overturns surface layers of the water into the deep and vice versa…” The result is less oxygen carried from the surface layers of the water (which is in intimate contact with air) into the deeper layers (NASA, 2009). This leads to further oxygen depletion of the region between the surface and the deep ocean, the oxygen-minimum zone or OMZ (Chameides, 2010).

In addition, the slowing down of the ocean’s circulation system also brings fewer nutrients from the deep layers into the ocean surface. With fewer nutrients available in the surface layers, oxygen-producing phytoplankton that drift in the ocean surface may be grossly affected. In fact, the declining numbers of phytoplankton species (which dropped by 40 percent from 1950 to 2010) noted in a study published July 29 in Nature was attributed to this nutrient deprivation (Morello, 2010). Phytoplankton organisms produce half of the world’s oxygen output (the other half is produced by plants on land). Hence, with decreasing numbers of these oxygen producers, the level of oxygen in the ocean (and the atmosphere as well) is bound to decline further.

Another reason for the reduced oxygen levels in the deep ocean mentioned by Stramma et al. (2008) is the reduced production of oxygen-rich deep water in polar regions. Furthermore, pollution has also been cited as one reason for the decline in ocean oxygen. Pollutants such as discharged sewage and industrial waste, farm fertilizer run-off, etc. trigger oxygen-depleting algal blooms. However, this only explains oxygen reduction in some coastal waters. In contrast, global warming justifies (at least partly) ocean oxygen decline across the globe. ...

​
This is one aspect of the multitude of disasters unfolding at all levels - from the cellular/generic level up - resulting from ignorant anti-scientific self-interests being allowed to run government policies for fun and profit.

Ignorance is not bliss, and the mad anti-scientists presenting their greed as 'science/technological fixes' cannot any longer be allowed to run the asylum.

No corporate-coup supporting candidate can be elected without effectively ending the chances of our survival and that of life on the planet.

(I presume this will be collapsed when posted?)

Edit: guess not...