Do add your two cents here anytime.
Welcome

I read Counterpunch daily and liked the article in your link. I look forward to being punished by being able to read more of your excellent writing here on cc% and at Counterpunch.

My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.

He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.
[link]

So are the next four years a duel to the death of the duopoly? One can only hope they slay each other and wake up the anger is an exploited populace.

a great read, though I'm hoping the clinton blitzkrieg can be stopped.

So when is your next article?

Please feel free to do so often. That article made me finally break down and get counterpunch sent to my e-mail, so extra thanks for that.

This stood out

By April of 2015 the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign were one indistinguishable juggernaut, intent on blitzing the presidential campaign like Hitler’s Wehrmacht stormed through Europe. The watch words seemed to be “first and most.” They amassed an early war-chest of a hundred million dollars or so and lined up 400 superdelegate endorsements—all before there was a single announced opponent. They invited 65 print and television journalists to meetings in early April, to help in “framing the HRC message and framing the race.”[ii] Among them were George Stephanoplous and 4 others from ABC; Rachel Maddow and 4 more from MSNBC; Gloria Borger and 7 of her colleagues from CNN; and 5 from the New York Times. Bloomberg, Politico, and CBS each sent along two.

If Hillary was still getting paid to give speeches while this was happening then she broke election law.
What is documented in this article is the proof that she and the DNC stole the election and she is not the valid nominee, Bernie is.
She may be able to say that she is the first women president but we get to say that she had to cheat to become it.
But that fits into what the Clintons stand for.

Thanks for posting your article. As has been said above, many of us read Counterpunch. We all seem to like essays that have facts to back up opinion rather than emotionalism. I guess that's because so many of us are so angry and disgusted at the political chicanery of our corporate masters. Please hang around.

May I have another.

Welcome!
Who knew I was a masochist, but I want more punishment.

You'll have to have your own room, if not house because I, alone, sleep in my bed. But DAMN, that was a terrific article! (At first, I was gonna complain about your not including at least a paragraph in a blockquote - now I want to shave my legs, just in case you accept my proposal.)

Seriously, welcome; and excellent article! Thanks for sharing the link.

For me, this part stood out:

We once had a law on the books (the UK still does) limiting not campaign contributions, but campaign expenditures. The limits were $10,000 for a Senate race, $5,000 for a Representative, sums easily provided from personal assets and those of family and friends. Reenacting such a law would break the corporate stranglehold; intense lobbying might continue, but no Senator, no Representative would feel the courteous urge to accommodate. The welfare of the American people could regain priority. The impact on the oligarchs, however, would be apocalyptic.

And it's an impact which needs to be made -- yesterday.

Welcome to c99, rwbehan!

This election season seems to have been extraordinary to me - I still can't decide if they are THAT good to have taken it to a whole 'nother level or if my eyes have just been opened.

And thanks for that Frank piece - I'd seen a lot of his other work in the past few months but had missed that.

*my list is articles which either describe or indicate loss of voter control over our choice of candidate.