Are Hillary and Donald really so different?

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 1:50pm

Did you ever get the feeling that you were being lied to about something so big that the entire paradigm of how the world is being presented to you is false?
The lie in this case is that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are dramatically different, and thus there is a Lesser Evil.
This leads to the dominant feature of presidential politics today - voting out of fear of the other.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
- Joseph Goebbels

Sure, there is a dramatic difference in styles.
Trump is crude and boorish, and appeals to nativism and xenophobia.
Hillary is a corrupt Washington insider, war hawk, and Wall Street darling.
Both of them engage in jingoism.

But styles mean almost nothing to you and me. Policies are what will ultimately affect our lives, not rhetoric, promises, or anything else the highly compromised corporate media likes to focus on.
If we learned anything from the Obama Administration, it's that the policies of the candidate are reflected by the people they choose to surround themselves with. So who are these people?

For instance, we already know that Hillary has surrounded herself with neocons straight out of George W. Bush's Iraq War.
But what do Donald's foreign policy advisers look like?

Trump’s official foreign policy team includes a minimum of two neocons, with Joseph E. Schmitz the clear winner of the award for the worst foreign policy adviser in Trump’s selection. Schmitz, a lawyer by trade, is the former Inspector General of the Department of Defense in addition to being a former executive at none other than Blackwater Worldwide.

Bravo, Donald.
I literally could not think of a worse selection than a Blackwater executive. Was the anti-christ not available?

Schmitz is also connected to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a neocon think tank whose publications fuel the anti-Islamic hysteria that is so prevalent in the US today. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research has documented, CSP is an organization that has received funding by corporate powers who are promoting Islamophobia in America. CSP is also reportedly financed by numerous giants of the military-industrial complex, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

Islamaphobia and the MIC. A twofer.

How about economic advisers?
Not surprisingly, Hillary has surrounded herself with Bill's old neoliberal advisors from the 90's.

Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's closest economic adviser, highlights those accomplishments in a recent book. He's the former head of President Clinton's National Economic Council. In 2005 he laid out many of what became Clinton's campaign themes in a book called the "The Pro-Growth Progressive."
The wonkish book is part policy recommendation and part memoir. Sperling touches on themes such as the fruits of fiscal discipline and deficit reduction. But he spends the most time on forging a new consensus about trade.
Noting its critics, Sperling writes favorably of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)....
Clinton also gets economic advice from former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup, the nation's largest bank.

Hillary also draws on younger, politically-connected people who went to the right school for economic advice.

Michael Shapiro and Michael Schmidt filter the economic advice Clinton receives and help her shape policy proposals. Both are relatively young, and well-connected when it comes to the Democratic establishment.
Shapiro is 29, and worked on the White House's National Economic Council after graduating Yale Law School. Earlier this year he married Jessica Schumer, the daughter of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Also a graduate of Yale Law, the 30-year-old Schmidt earned his economic credentials working at the U.S. Treasury Department. He previously helped manage Yale's endowment, working in the university's investments office.

Not a big surprise here. More neoliberalism from the same people who failed us before.

But what about Donald. Surely his circle of advisers will be vastly different, right?

Ahead of an economic speech Donald Trump will deliver in Detroit on Monday, the Republican nominee released a list of economic advisors that includes hedge fund managers, bank executives and a cigarette manufacturer.

Oh goody. The list is long, but let's pick out a few highlights.

Beal Bank is one of the largest private banks in the country. Founded by Andy Beal in 1988, Beal’s two banks have combined assets of more than $7 billion.
...
The founder of Cerberus Capital Management, Feinberg’s company manages more than $30 billion in investments and is headquartered in Manhattan. The firm has deep roots with Republicans. Former George H.W. Bush Vice President Dan Quayle is Cerberus’ head of global investment. John W. Snow, George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, is the firm’s chairman.
...
Malpass worked as a high-ranking Treasury department official in the Ronald Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations. He was the chief economist at Bear Stearns, the New York investment bank that collapsed in 2008 and contributed to the recession.

This gives you an idea, but the article leaves off a few names.

Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s National Finance Chairman and a major economic adviser, could not be more in bed with Wall Street and the establishment. Mnuchin is a former partner at Goldman Sachs, spending a total of 17 years at the financial powerhouse, according to Bloomberg. In addition to working for Goldman for close to two decades, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, a firm founded by the billionaire and regime change extraordinaire, George Soros.
Another prominent economic adviser to Trump is John Paulson, the billionaire and hedge fund manager who founded Paulson & Co in 1994. Paulson, who formerly worked at Bear Stearns, is famous for shorting the housing market in the run up to the financial crisis of 2007-08, earning approximately $4 billion from the trade. The billionaire is also a member of the CFR, in addition to previously backing Mitt Romney in his failed 2012 presidential bid.

Goldman Sachs. Bear Stearns. Private banks.
It's exactly what you would expect from Hillary's Team. Er, I mean Donald's Team. Uh, I mean...

But considering the nature of the advisers surrounding Trump, the establishment has pulled its usual trick of ensuring that it controls both major candidates in the presidential race.

Yeh, that's what I mean.

Tags:

2016

donald trump

Hillary Clinton

Vote

Comments

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 2:05pm

Minutes ago I read an answer on Quora

Who Is More Evil?

We all agree Trump would be a dangerous president. But if we actually look at the human impact of neoliberal policies that have already been implemented, we have to ask ourselves whether Hillary’s policies won’t do just as much if not more damage to human life.

We have very serious social, civil rights, justice, health care, and education issues in America. And Trump would make things tough for many minorities. But nothing happening here can compare to the egregious injustice and murder happening with American blessing and tax dollars in places like Israel and Palestine, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria, or Yemen. There have been at least 250,000 documented people killed in Iraq (although the actual number is estimated to be closer to 1 Million). This war is still ongoing, and has extended to surrounding countries via a drone war that murders thousands of people, 90% of whom are innocent bystanders.

Israel has been illegally occupying, building settlements, transferring population, annexing land, stealing water, forbidding building, blocking import and EXPORT, demolishing homes, and brutally oppressing and humiliating 4 million humans in Palestine since 1967. This is the biggest human rights issue in the world today, and America funds it and supports it. We refuse to condemn it. Thousands of Palestinians are being murdered by Israeli army, as it imposes it’s control over the land. Israel controls all the land and the resources, refused to grant these humans citizenship or give them a vote in the government that rules over them and also refuses to grant them the right to exist as their own state.

This is what Neoliberalism stands for. Tell me how Trump is going to be worse?

Yes, Hillary isn’t a fool like Trump, but Hillary and the DNC have already supported and caused more deaths and injustice and suffering than any of Trumps proposals, e.g. Trump wants to ban Muslims, but the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton are actually killing them in the thousands. Trump is bad, but Hillary is doing evil stuff too. How are we supposed to pretend she’s a better option?
-- Chadwick Meyer profile
-- quora thread

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by EdMass on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 2:49pm

Well, there's also that Parts Thing

Y'a know, lady vs man-y...

There is this.

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2016/08/20/hillary-clinton-talks-mo...

Hillary Clinton talks more like a man than she used to

Over this period, Clinton’s speech became increasingly masculine. When she occupied a political office or took on a major policy initiative, her language shifted to a more masculine style. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton’s linguistic style was consistent with her more feminine role as the wife of a presidential nominee. But when she led the administration’s health reform policy in 1993–1994, Clinton’s language changed to suit the political environment, reflecting masculine norms of communication that dominate policymaking.

After 1994, Clinton performed more traditional duties of the first lady and her language followed suit, turning more feminine. As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, her language again shifted toward a masculine style, sustained throughout her time in Congress. As secretary of state, her language again conformed to the masculine expectations of her position.

Looking at her first presidential campaign, I find that for most of 2007, Clinton’s language is consistently more masculine. By late 2007, however, when she was trailing far behind Barack Obama on measures of likability, Clinton’s language became more feminine, particularly in interviews.

Oh my.

But maybe there's a regional origin issue.

The Dumpher is NY all the way.

The HRC, well that's a little harder to figure...

Tracking Hillary Clinton’s Use of Every American Accent East of the Mississippi

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-22/tracking-hillary-c...

During her tenure in politics, Hillary Clinton has shifted between several distinct versions of American English. This is not terribly unusual. President Barack Obama has been known to change his pronunciation according to region and audience. But the thing about Clinton is that she’s been in the game for so long, and has had so many different jobs and lived in so many different places, that her various accents wind up mapping her career.

Cheers!

—

Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!

Firesign Theater

Stop the War!

Submitted by artisan on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 2:55pm

We know what a Clinton administration will be like.

Jill Stein:
“The terrible things that we expect from Donald Trump, we’ve actually already seen from Hillary Clinton”

I wonder about the self awareness of someone who would name his company Cerberus Capital Management.

Cerberus
In Greek mythology, Cerberus, often called the "hound of Hades", is a monstrous multi-headed dog, who guards the gates of the underworld, preventing the dead from leaving. Wikipedia

Submitted by Bluesee on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 10:36pm

Right, isn't that what the Acquisition and Merger Firm Should Do

"When we kill you, you stay dead."

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 3:17pm

... Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are dramatically different

Isn't that pretty much the sole premise, now, for Dead State?

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:09pm

A lot of people are convinced either way

but when they give their reasons, it's obvious that they are largely just a list of guesses and opinions.

No one knows the future, but looking at the list of advisers is facts that we can draw from.
And the available facts say that they are more alike than different.

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:18pm

I agree that they're not so different....

Just laughing at people and places determined/paid to say otherwise.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 3:34pm

Hillary is much worse if elected.

If Hillary is elected she will have the support of Dem lawmakers, and if and when she turns rightward on domestic issues, the tack support of the GOP on many issues.

Hillary will have complete support for her wars in both houses of Congress. The gop will criticize Hillary at every step, but it will not be anti-war. Rather, they will attack her on mismanagement of the wars the gop also wants.

We honestly don't know what Trump will do, but he does seem consistent at least with having some sort of rapprochement with Putin which reduces chances of walking into a nuclear war. As for his domestic agenda, both dems and gopers will not support him.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 6:55pm

Whoever supports the

Whoever supports the unconstitutional premise of the corporate coups, such as the TPP - as they both will - that involved (and to-be-conquered-or-destroyed countries and people, using the military, public and public financial and other resources of involved countries for this illegal and immoral purpose) people and countries exist only to maximize the profits of specifically involved corporate/billionaire interests, despite it literally killing them, (very possibly providing a welcome release from a life of serfdom where their and environmental health, safety and survival are of no moment and have no standing under off-shored global corporate law eager to kill life on the planet to pick the last of the fat and meat from the corpse,) will be the same as any other selected corporate manager willing to betray not only their country but the very concepts of democracy/civilization and the last chance of the survival of the life forming the life support system of Earth, developing over billions of years of evolution as it has, and to be wasted by the mindless greed of a relative few too ignorant to know what they do in order to 'have it all' at the end of it all.

Vote for either, and kiss your last vestige of freedom, along with your oxygen and potable water supplies, good-by.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Damnit Janet on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:02pm

I think Hillary will be worse

Trump is an international laughing stock. He's been laughed out of Scotland's Parliament. I don't think many of his hairbrain schemes will happen. The Wall? Won't happen - but we already have walls up.

Hillary will have all the support she will need to destroy all living creatures. Trump is a piece of shit, but Hillary is a killing machine.

And if you think protesting Cheney and Rove was hard. Try protesting Hillary. It's always been bad.

In other words, you can't fight her. You can't stop her. I no longer care about the SCOTUS pick stuff, I actually think the SCOTUS is a joke that needs to be overhauled anyways.

I'm not voting for either because I'm well aware that elections haven't been done in this country for a long fucking time.

Here's another bit of reality: your votes don't matter anyways.... it's all rigged. We need a new system. That's what we should be fighting for.

Regardless, this country will be even more worse, more brutal, more wars with either of them. The "choice" just proves how far down the drain this country has allowed itself to be.

—

"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

Submitted by Hillbilly Dem on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 5:35pm

Rec'd. Any "danger" that Trump might bring is

theoretical, unproven and unlikely to even happen. Her Royal Heinous, in contrast, presents a clear and present danger to the United States and, therefore, to most of the world. For the life of me, I cannot understand the millions of people who are marching behind her in lockstep. True confession: I've found myself refusing to engage those who rail against Hillary, even when they do so for the "wrong reasons". If they're against Hillary, who am I to interfere?

—

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:30pm

You are right about how hard it will be to protest Hillary

So many of us joined DK because of the Iraq war and the Bush policies like renditions and torture.
But once Obama started doing the same damned things and killing innocent civilians with his drones, the anal feeding of the prisoners at Gitmo which is considered torture, many of the people who joined DK because of the Iraq war went silent.
And now those people will be nowhere to be seen once Hillary starts putting ground troops in Syria.
The Joint chiefs of staff believe that it would take 70,000 troops to make a difference.
And why would those troops be risking their lives?
Not to fight against ISIL, or to protect the Syrian people, spread the freedom and democracy shit they always say, or to protect our country.
But to overthrow Assad because he is the leader of one of the 7 countries that Wesley Clark told us that the US was going to attack.
Why? So that Israel is the only superpower in the Middle East.
That's right folks. We are paying for that with the troops lives and our money. Israel doesn't have any skin in the game.
And not many Americans know this.

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:47pm

There's the rub.

Regardless, this country will be even more worse, more brutal, more wars with either of them. The "choice" just proves how far down the drain this country has allowed itself to be.

And many people, myself included, have tried to explain this to everyone they know both online and off. And it seems to me that no one cares to know.

And as for elections and the Supreme Court...Neither have done jack shit for people with disabilities. Ever. And the token ADA legislation doesn't count.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by tapu dali on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 2:25am

More wars?

Sorry to disabuse you of your preconceptions, but the US has been into war since (and even before) its Founding.

One reason for the revolutionary war was that the British did not believe that the Colonies should expand into territories occupied by Native Americans.

The wealthy landowners and businessmen of the Colonies disagreed: they saw the so-called "empty" lands to the West to be seized and the "savages" therein either murdered or deported.

So they rebelled in order to fulfill some imaginary "destiny" by invading and occupying these not-so-empty lands.

The historical background of your Revolution is nowhere as noble as your hagiography has made it out to be.

—

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

Submitted by FreeSociety on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 1:42pm

Good Points

The biggest difference here between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is that Donald Trump is dysfunctional, immature, contradictory, and is inept and has no natural political coalition -- and so most of his agenda will just be dead on arrival.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a smooth, underhanded operator (like Dick Cheney): calculating, secretive, cold, deliberately misleading, and ruthless. She will succeed in producing more harm, and more lasting harm that cannot easily be undone (Libya, for example, applied to many other Neocon targets, and of course: The TPP).

And I couldn't agree more that this political system (which at its core is based on legalized bribery by the 1%), needs to be overhauled. If we don't start doing this now .... then when do we?

We need to reject this system, and fight against it (support 3rd Parties) ... while we still have any chance possible left to us. Otherwise, at some point, some bankster-created, global, multi-national body will simply .... inform us who the next chosen U.S. President is (as well as policy), and elections will be regarded as obsolete.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:06pm

Hillary IS Trump.

In a better looking suit of clothes, better hair, and a better liar.

I've been saying that for months now........

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by Damnit Janet on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:15pm

I always said Hillary was George W in pantyhose

they voted the same way on everything. Codepink did a bird dogging of her and her fundraising and warmongering bs. I personally think she is he worst politician, worst woman in our history. Evil. Pure evil.

—

"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

Submitted by jwa13 on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 5:21pm

... not "pantyhose", Janet --

"pantSUITS" --

—

When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 6:00pm

Camouflage pantsuits?

I bet she has some.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by reflectionsv37 on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 9:40pm

For those occasions...

when she's expecting sniper fire!

—

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush

Submitted by FreeSociety on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 1:35pm

Camouflage pantsuits with "sniper fire" on them

And she has to duck into them ....

Submitted by Outsourcing Is ... on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 5:42pm

I agree

I had thought Nixon was the most evil politician ever with all his dirty tricks but Hillary outdid him when she got Melania Trump to recite that Michelle Obama speech at the Reublican National Conventon. Brilliant, in an evil kind of way.

—

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 6:24pm

I'll give you the better hair and liar...

But better suit? My mother's 10 years older than that person, and she wouldn't be seen dead in whatever passes for fashion in that individual's closet.

Good for Mum I say.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by gustogirl on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 12:46pm

Her wardrobe choices

presage other bad decisions to come.

Submitted by crescentmoon on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:27pm

And the difference is.....

And the difference is..... Hillary is the true choice of the oligarchy and Donald Trump is the foil and the cartoonish, racist/hatefilled voice that deligitimizes and divides the very real citizen anger cutivated by a corrupt beyond redemption global system.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:28pm

And voting for either is

And voting for either is voting for another way to die. Both will sacrifice the world to the Powers That Be for a little share of 'it all'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwELajFteTo&list=RDYGchlqCjj8A&index=27

Disturbed - Another Way To Die

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by movie buff on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:34pm

Which party would you rather destroy?

They both need to be destroyed, in my opinion, but 2016 offers us the unique opportunity to render one of the major parties useless and impotent for the foreseeable future.

If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democrats will get crushed in the 2018 midterms, lose the presidency in 2020, and after two cycles of racking up big wins, the GOP will control enough state legislatures to pretty much gerrymander the Democrats out of existence in the redistricting that follows the 2020 census.

If Donald Trump wins, you'll get almost the reverse: the Republicans will be humiliated in the midterms and then lose the White House in 2020, although the Democrats probably won't gerrymander their districts too badly (being Democrats and all.)

If there was ever a pyrrhic victory in American politics, it's winning the presidency in 2016. If you win it, your party is screwed. Can you even imagine the existential despair that will grip the Left about two years from now, halfway through Hillary's ~~first~~ only term, when nothing major has been done (except that we're now in a ground war in Syria), the economy still sucks for everyone except the rich, Obamacare has completely fallen apart and been replaced by nothing, and the Right is frothing at the mouth and on the cusp of winning supermajorities in both houses of Congress? It'll make 2010 look like polka dots and rainbows.

So I guess the question is, who would do more damage to the country? For an answer, I'd have to go with Clinton. Trump would be a lame duck from day one. He wouldn't be able to rely on his own party for support. The window for any damage he could do would be two years, before he gets neutered by the midterms.

So if you want to destroy the Democrats, vote Clinton. If you want to destroy the Republicans, vote Trump. Call it the year of voting counterintuitively.

—

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." --Noam Chomsky

Submitted by crescentmoon on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 4:44pm

If Hillary wins, she will

If Hillary wins, she will "win" again in 2020, if her health holds enough. There will be war and another "greater evil". This is how they keep the veneer of democratic elections because it works.

Submitted by gustogirl on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 12:50pm

The winner is the one with the greatest opportunities

to rig things even further than they already are.

Submitted by Roy Blakeley on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 2:14pm

Either way

If HRC wins in 2016, we will be certain to have at least 8 years of bad government (two HRC terms or one HRC term and a bad, bad Republican term). I am disgusted with myself for saying it, but if Trump wins, there is at least a chance for a better President and Congress in 2020. Trump is so ignorant and narcissistic that he scares the hell out of me, but, then, HRC is only a little lower on the sociopathic scale.

Submitted by James Kroeger on Tue, 08/23/2016 - 7:14am

There's something you left out...

If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democrats will get crushed in the 2018 midterms, lose the presidency in 2020, and after two cycles of racking up big wins, the GOP will control enough state legislatures to pretty much gerrymander the Democrats out of existence in the redistricting that follows the 2020 census. If Donald Trump wins, you'll get almost the reverse: the Republicans will be humiliated in the midterms and then lose the White House in 2020...

You left something important out of your projections. If Hillary loses, the Centrist faction within the Democratic Party will suffer a defeat of historical porportions, having invested itself and all of its massive political strength in a losing cause. If they win this election, they own the Dem Party for the indefinite future.

However, if she loses in November, it gives the Bernie Sanders faction of the Dem Party a real opportunity to reform the party in the way Bernie has long envisioned it. With the Centrists discredited, it becomes a real possibility.

This is why I think any [former] Bernie Sanders supporters who perceive Trump and Clinton to be equally evil, ought to ignore the anti-Trump message Bernie's been pushing lately and stop the Centrists from reigning supreme on the Dem side of the political spectrum.

One very bad possibility for the next four years is just really bad; the other very bad possibility is also really bad, but it also provides those who invested themselves in Bernie Sanders over the past year some real hope for the future.

(Of course, from my POV, Hillary is far worse, and highly likely to put us on the brink of nuclear war vs. Russia within her first year of office. Her appetite for brinkmanship borders on OCD.)

—

James Kroeger

Submitted by PhilK on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 11:10pm

I agree

Clinton would be much worse than Trump.

Trump has said some ridiculous things, but he's done nothing that comes close to the monstrous, hideous things that Clinton has done in Honduras, Syria, Libya and Ukraine.

Trump is a big-time bullshitter, but Clinton is a pathological, psychopathic liar.

Submitted by jwa13 on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 5:19pm

"More neoliberalism from the same people who failed us before"

Failed us? They SCREWED us!

—

When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 12:12am

Shhh! It’s just like with 9/11 — or chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria…

“Adults” with that slightly condescending lilt in their tone of voice, who claim to be “applying Occam’s razor” (seeking the simplest explanation), will immediately pop up to say the elite’s experts and systems “fail” us due to human error and incompetence — never because the outcome was planned that way from the start.

Thinking anything might have been on purpose is “conspiracy theory,” don’tcha know.

Submitted by Shockwave on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 5:28pm

As I always say...a slap on the face vs. a kick in the balls

I am leaning Jill in my non-swing state but on a some of issues I care about I think Hillary would be better than bully, sociopath, megalomaniac, narcissist Donald; global warming, nuclear war, military spending, police demilitarization, etc.

—

The political revolution continues

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:52pm

Why do you think Hillary will be better than Donald

on climate change?

Why do you think she will be better than Donald on nuclear war?

These are real questions, not attacks.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Shockwave on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 10:40pm

It's not just that Trump said that climate change is a hoax

He even thinks the whole environmental movement is a hoax;

If Elected, Trump Pledges 'To Abolish The Environment'

And on nuclear war;

Graphic: Donald Trump’s Terrifying Views On Nuclear Weapons

Hillary scares me, Trump horrifies me.

—

The political revolution continues

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 5:45am

The trouble is, I’m old enough to remember LBJ versus Goldwater

Goldwater sounded dangerous, but in fact — because, whaddaya know, the Gulf of Tonkin incident did turn out to be a “hoax” after all — it was LBJ and the Democrats who were already lying us waist-deep into the Big Muddy of blood that was the Vietnam War.

Submitted by Shockwave on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 11:07am

I know you wouldn't have voted for Goldwater...

...like Hillary probably did. Among other things, he started the Southern Strategy. LBJ was no JFK.

And speaking of Goldwater;

[video:https://youtu.be/LiG0AE8zdTU]

—

The political revolution continues

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 11:33am

Interestingly, Goldwater became a prominent LGBT rights advocate

and reproductive freedom advocate after 1980, strongly opposing Republicans’ mixing of politics and religion. He famously said, “All good Christians should kick Jerry Falwell right in the [anatomical term].”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

In 1964 I was neither old nor well-informed enough to vote (the minimum voting age in Hawaii at the time was 20).

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 7:46am

What difference does it make what they think

if they end up doing the same things?

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Shockwave on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 11:15am

Trump as POTUS is one giant Russian roulette...

...with a pistol.

—

The political revolution continues

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 1:28pm

Speaking of Russia--

You might want to consider the ways in which a Hillary presidency could put a gun to all our heads, quite more effectively than a Trump presidency.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-says-iran-deal-wont-...

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Shockwave on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 3:59pm

I do not have good expectations for Hillary

But Trump...

Are you voting for him?

—

The political revolution continues

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 5:20pm

No.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by James Kroeger on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 10:20pm

Oh hell no...

Hillary scares me, Trump horrifies me.

For me, it's exactly the opposite.

Trump vs. Russia doesn't concern me at all, given his apparent readiness to pull out of NATO.

Hillary, on the other hand, has been itching for years to show that she is a tough bitch vs. [America's supposed] enemies. Her pattern consistently over the past dozen years has been to advocate the most provocative and reckless 'responses' to situations vs. Russia and China that the generals and neo-cons advising her have proposed.

For purely political reasons, she is afraid to not throw America's military muscle around whenever any opportunity presents itself. Trump? The mere fact that he has even talked about pulling out of NATO is encouraging.

The bottom line is we can handle Trump's kind of dangerous craziness. Most of his bad ideas would require Congress passing new legislation and that's not likely, given the vociferous opposition of the Dems, half the Republican party, and the corporate media.

But Hillary's war lust does not need the approval of Congress, as we have seen over the past several decades. I fully expect a new conflict and or nuclear scare within the first couple of years of a HRC administration.

—

James Kroeger

Submitted by stevej on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 8:33pm

Absolutely no

grounds for declaring that HRC will be better on nuclear war, military spending, police demilitarization, based on past actions.

Global warming could go either way as could the personality traits listed.

—

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 6:30am

I think she could be worse on those issues than Donald and

"bully, sociopath, megalomaniac, narcissist" are words that describe her at least as much as they describe him.

I almost typed that I think she would be better on reproductive choice, but, then, I remembered that she offered to negotiate a constitutional amendment re: Roe v. Wade, so I edited while in the process of drafting.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 7:47am

Horrific, isn't it?

Not one principle that matters to her.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by gustogirl on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 12:58pm

And you think Hillary ISN'T

a bully, sociopath, megalomaniac, narcissist?

Really, the difference between the two candidates is that Trump is a loose cannon, but we absolutely know the various paths of destruction Hillary will take us on.

They are equally evil.

Submitted by River Rover on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 5:35pm

An oligarch is an oligarch is

An oligarch is an oligarch is an oligarch ...

—

Rivers are horses - and kayaks are their saddles

Submitted by Shahryar on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:01pm

why I won't vote for Hillary

the only reason is because she won't be as bad as Trump.

But I picture myself with my ballot, thinking "is she really any better? I suppose, possibly, Trump is worse...but I'm not convinced of that."

And if I'm not absolutely sure that she's any better than Trump there's no point in my voting for her. Since I hate her, you know.

Submitted by boriscleto on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:24pm

Hillary is Yoda

And Yoda was the most evil character in the history of literature...

"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists

Yoda is Dead but Star Wars' Dubious Lessons Live On

—

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 7:40pm

Beautiful pictures, boriscleto

—

There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?

Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 8:09pm

I don't agree with the article altogether

But I agree with it a lot.

Author is hedging his bets by not talking about what else Anakin Skywalker does besides save the life of his son: he kills the Emperor, thus ending the Empire.

I also object to his wholesale condemnation of fantasy and fairy tales, but that's an old battle between science fiction and fantasy. (He's conveniently ignoring JRR Tolkien, for one thing.)

Nonetheless, he's far more right than wrong about Star Wars, and his critique of fantasy and fairy tales, once you rid it of its absolutism, has a lot that's right about it.

Fascinating article. Thanks for the link!

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 9:15pm

This essay filled me with such enthusiasm for our future

that I will watch a double feature: "Trainspotting" and "The Exorcist" I actually think that it was Hillary in the movie spewing green-colored vomit.

Submitted by Floande on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 10:24pm

This just sums up how I've been feeling lately:

"Did you ever get the feeling that you were being lied to about something so big that the entire paradigm of how the world is being presented to you is false?".

Sadly, you just nailed it. Thank you for a very thoughtful essay.

Submitted by Muddy Boots on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 10:41pm

The US will see a surge in domestic violence either way

But especially if Hillary is president. Both Trump and Hillary are hugely unpopular. The country is divided and I don't see disenfranchised GOPers going quietly and they are well armed and primed with propaganda. The US is entering a period of riots and violence from all sides - anti war / police violence and anti government / Hillary both. Nothing in this election speaks of unification that I can see. I hope I am wrong.

—

"If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back" - Regina Brett

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 10:45pm

Advice: buy body armor and gas masks.

You are absolutely correct (naturally) because I believe the same.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 1:33pm

Advice: get to know your neighbors.

Much more helpful in the long run.

Also: talk across those political boundaries. Reach out as a human being.

This is all much easier if you're white. Very hard to reach out to Trumpistas when you're a person of color. But reaching out to non-Trump folks is an excellent idea.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 1:31pm

I see what you see. Primarily along racial lines.

Somebody wants the race war a lot bigger, so they decided to play a theatrical version of it out through presidential politics, making sure to put one of the most disliked people in the country at the head of the racial justice side of the fight.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by karl pearson on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 11:46pm

We Shouldn't Be Surprised

We really shouldn't be surprised that there is little difference between Clinton and Trump. Hillary Clinton was raised in a staunch Republican household and is proud of her conservative roots, and she has said so. I believe the only reason HRC became a Democrat is because of Bill. When Bill first ran for office in 1976 as Attorney General he had no choice but to run as a Democrat. Statewide, Arkansas was still more "Solid Democratic South" at that time and was the last Southern state to flip Republican.

Submitted by Bluesee on Sun, 08/21/2016 - 11:58pm

When the System Presents a Binary Choice..

..such as we are, what is one to do?

I am reminded of the warnings about Campaign Finance Reform, how that was a big problem way back when. Now we are post-Citizen's United. Tell me, how can you restore our government, to not just greatness, but decency?

We went so far backward on CFR, which was a major priority of our caucus, that I doubt our voices can matter. Barnacles on a freighter, I'm inclined to picture.

—

Bernie is a win-win.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 8:44am

They are evil in different ways. Hillary has

contributed to much more death and destruction than Donald. The three of them (Hillary means Bill) are world class con artists. A stew from Hell, they are.

Why are we in this position?

Because nothing prevented it.

What do we need to laser focus on ASAP?

What, if anything, can we do to make sure we and/or our kids and grandkids are not in this place or, much more likely, an even worse one, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 years from now?

Submitted by karl pearson on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 12:36am

I've asked myself this same question

What can we do? After what I witnessed during the Democratic primary season, I am now an Independent and voting 3rd party (Jill Stein) for the first time, after voting Democratic all my life. It sends a message to TPTB and if enough people reject this duopoly it will have an impact. This country is ready for some kind of a 3rd party. Independents are a larger group than either the Dems or GOP and the Independents are growing. How long can a minority party govern a large majority? That concept is foreign to the American DNA.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 6:17am

I did the same, but it is nowhere near enough.

Not even on the same planet as enough.

As an observer of the 2016 primary, you saw what media did. You saw what almost every Democratic politician in this country did. You saw and see what the Republicans are doing. All in support of the coronation. They, esp. media, did a more thorough job on this than they did in ginning up the invasion of Iraq. Of course, they had much longer to work on the coronation.

In Russia, people understood what Pravda was up to and why. Most people don't get that commercial media has become the propaganda arm of TPTB. So, brainwashing in easier. Also, most people are not activists, for whatever reasons. And, since the 1860s, Americans have been used to having either a Democratic government or a Republican one. Some people will vote for a newer party in the near future; most will not.
The last successful new party was the Republican Party, founded in 1854 and jump started by an abolitionist movement that began during colonial times and gradually swelled until it was large enough and unified enough to form a viable political party. We don't have a couple three centuries and, God love the left, unifying is not its strong suit. Just the opposite. Still, we have to figure out ways and move fast.

A few more of my thoughts on this: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/159437#comment-159437

I think step one needs to be finding a figure the left trusts, like Sarandon, and trying to enlist their help in publicizing a fund-raising website and taking it from there.

Submitted by tapu dali on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 2:11am

For the purposes of historical accuracy

and a useful reference, here is Goebbels' Zitat in the original German:

Göbbels Zitat: "Wenn man eine große Lüge erzählt und sie oft genug wiederholt, dann werden die Leute sie am Ende glauben. Man kann die Lüge so lange behaupten, wie es dem Staat gelingt, die Menschen von den politischen, wirtschaftlichen und militärischen Konsequenzen der Lüge abzuschirmen. Deshalb ist es von lebenswichtiger Bedeutung für den Staat, seine gesamte Macht für die Unterdrückung abweichender Meinungen einzusetzen. Die Wahrheit ist der Todfeind der Lüge, und daher ist die Wahrheit der größte Feind des Staates."

—

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 6:50am

Sperling also worked for Obama. The sequester was his

brainchild, but he lied and lied about that until Woodward proved Sperling was lying.

Then Sperling's lame fall back attempt to deceive was that the sequester was not adopted in the form in which he had proposed it. 'Cause, you know, that's what Senators and Representatives always do, adopt stuff exactly the way they see it for the first time, no additions or amendments whatever. So, whenever they change someone, apparently no one made the first move. /eyeroll.

Which brings me to the Goebbels quote about the Big Lie. This part of the quote is way off:

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.

Who in Germany was shielded from the consequences of Goebbels' big lies? Few, if any. Who in the USA has been shielded from the consequences of the US government's big lies? Few, if any. The only ones really shielded from unpleasant consequences of lies (and of truths) are those who are wealthy and/or powerful; and they are shielded from everything that government can impact, anyway.

Most of us do feel the adverse consequences of the big lies, but the big lies keep us from identifying the real source of our woes. For example, thanks to big lies from Democrats, we blame Reagan for so many things that started under Nixon and his Democratic-controlled Congress. I am not saying Reagan did nothing wrong. I am saying Reagan had plenty of help from Presidents and Congresses before and after him, both Democratic and Republican. (Also, Democrats like Hillary and Obama don't blame him for much, if anything publicly, even praise him, but someone sure gets us doing that amongst ourselves.)

But, as long as we pretend all our problems come from Reagan (or Reagan and other Republicans), we don't grasp that simply voting Democratic is not the solution to all our problems. On the other side, Republican voters have been similarly duped to believe that Democratic Presidents and/or legislators are to blame for all their ills. Therefore, Americans don't take effective action to get out from under the adverse consequences.

Submitted by terriertribe on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 12:51pm

I always read it this way...

Not a precise translation

... as long as the State successfully hides the ... consequences from the people.

But one which makes more sense to me, and accounts for your "who" question. I see that abzuschirmen is usually translated as shield, but I think it can also be screen, as in to hide, to keep from seeing. DISCLAIMER: a little high school German almost 50 years ago does not make me a reliable translator.

—

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 1:34pm

Thank you so much.

In all versions, included the one posted upthread, though, the populace is supposedly shielded from, or unaware of the consequences. I just don't think that is the reality. I think the populace almost always suffers from the adverse consequences of bad actions, but the Big Lie keeps them in the dark as to who is responsible for their suffering.

Submitted by terriertribe on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 4:47pm

You're welcome

I agree. The people always suffer, but the Big Lie diverts their attention so that they do not recognize the source of their suffering. Often a lot of smaller lies are used to support the Big Lie.

—

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

Submitted by kharma on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 8:31am

Regardless of your choice for a team, the NFL wins.

—

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams

Submitted by Ken in MN on Mon, 08/22/2016 - 2:47pm

HA!

Bravo, Donald.
I literally could not think of a worse selection than a Blackwater executive. Was the anti-christ not available?

No, Dick was too busy buying his evil spawn Liz a US House seat from Wyoming...

—

I want my two dollars!