He ain't got no class, but!
Turns out there's a serious policy case to be made for Trump:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/im-bernie-sanders-voter-heres-w...
On foreign policy, for instance, "Trump is much more explicit about these things than Sanders has been, and Trump has been even so bold as to assert: “I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it’s obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today’s Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don’t think – right now we don’t have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat.”Though there was his usual incoherence — NATO is “obsolete” but “you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries” (instead of to end it) — his statement isn’t nearly as incoherent as, for example, Hillary’s proposing to bring peace to Syria by going to war there against Russia. And he clarified his view further when he went on to say of NATO, that not only are its member-countries wrong for today’s challenges, but that “it was set up to talk about the Soviet Union,” and the big problem today is terrorism, and “I think, probably a new institution maybe would be better for that than using NATO which was not meant for that.” So: he actually knows that it’s got to be ended. A military alliance that’s “obsolete” is dangerous. Perhaps no U.S. Presidential candidate has spoken in such depth about foreign affairs. In this matter, he has delved far beyond the fashionable political platitutudes, to the basic realities, which no politician wants to talk about. Doing this requires guts. He’s correct not only regarding TPP etc., but regarding fundamental military strategy."
Worth reading the whole article. It's not just the TPP. Of course, his style is still pretty crude, but is that worth war and corporate ownership?
Comments
Feels as if world is upside down
and I agree with this essay from zerohedge.
Trump certainly wouldn't be my first choice, if we had a choice.
Have been voting for more than 50 years, first time considering ignoring the election. Democratic party I supported all my life is long gone.
Bernie Sanders, best opportunity since Robert F. Kennedy, we've had to elect an honorable person for POTUS, literally robbed of his, our, opportunity.
So, 4 years of Trump seems to be the best we can do. Also hoping the Green Party gets more than 5%.
Fighting cynicism. Cynicism winning.
Apparently, there's still a
Apparently, there's still a way for a slim chance of President Bernie, while growing the Greens - or at the least that of giving a massively defiant middle finger to the corporate candidates, while disrupting the wa of the corporate parties, perhaps enough to stymie the current shove-through of the corporate coup planned for right after the 'electoral' Coronation, if they can manage to make that look remotely plausible.
And remember that Bernie used the one (admittedly personally crushing) strategy which allowed him to evade conceding to Hillary or releasing his delegates to her at the Damn Coronation, so he's still in the running as - well, actually as the guy who won the Dem nomination which Americans (and the rest of the world) were cheated of.
(Bolding mine)
http://embols.com/2016/09/25/how-bernie-sanders-could-become-president-w...
Dawn Papple’s excellent article in The Inquisitr
http://www.inquisitr.com/3527032/could-just-thousands-in-wyoming-or-verm...
And below, the impressive how-to manual for improved chances of a successful democratic revolution with minimum bloodshed, as has been previously posted about here on C-9.
https://twitter.com/OpDeny270
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtZ8U5u7Gx8&sns=tw
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.
Obama was cool and classy
You can call me naive, but a lot of us worked our hearts out for Obama in 2008. Didn't work out so well.
Hate that the Tundra Tart was correct on this one:
"How's that Hopey/Changey thing workin' out for you?"
More than disappointed in Obama, feeling now borders on betrayal, if I let it.
He was first candidate I worked so hard for in a long, long time. Thought I'd learned my lesson, but, then along comes Jane and Bernie Sanders. Felt so good to feel so good about a potential POTUS.
Finally, finally done. Care deeply about what's happening in Syria, ME, accepting not a damn thing I can do about it, but cry.
Obama ran a much classier campaign in 08 than Hillary
The fact that Hillary keeps choosing these ugly, amoral abusers to run her campaigns does not bode well.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Saying I heard once
An ally may come across as crude and abrasive, causing you to consider them an enemy, while an enemy may say all the right things elegantly, causing them to appear to you an ally.
It was something to that effect. And it just seems that is so often the case these days.
allies and enemies
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
-- Christian Scriptures, II Corinthians 11:14 (KJV)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Makes me think of the Lord of
Makes me think of the Lord of the Rings series, first thing to come up was a facebook page, but it'll do.
https://www.facebook.com/lordoftheringsbook/posts/405855069535589
The Lord of the Rings
July 24, 2013 ·
'I look foul and feel fair. Is that it? All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost.' Who said this?
The Lord of the Rings
June 26 ·
“All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.”
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.
I guess we can always find justification for bad decisions.
But I will never cast a vote for the orange pucker-hole.
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
So His Reason For Not Voting For Jill Stein
is that he thinks she can't win. So he wants his vote to go for a winner even if that winner is a racist, misogynist, xenophobe who also doubles as an idiot clown says really stupid shit every time he opens his mouth.
BTW, Jill Stein can't win only because there are masses of people who think like the idiot who wrote that article.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I like Jill
but not enough to risk Hillary's WWW III.
WWW? Is she going to wage World War III on the Internet?
Thing is, Trump has said, "We have to take out their families" (referring to terrorists). He would intentionally commit war crimes (going after known innocents). He famously has a thin skin and a short temper - you can see it firsthand on any number of videos and tweets that he himself has put out.
So I think Trump in power also risks WW III. And Hill is fairly calm and strategic - she may not get us into WW III after all. It's a tossup.
And if it doesn't matter whether Hill or Don get into the WH, then we can all vote for Jill with a clear conscience.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Hill is, I think, much more likely to get us into WW III
and, oddly enough, she did say she wanted to respond to cyber attacks the same way we respond to military attacks on our country, so in a way, yeah, she does want to wage war on the Internet.
That said, I'm not going to vote for Trump; I believe he's working with Hillary.
I want real opposition, not the WWF:
This is basically what Trump's doing, just not as well as the original:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cDWPvhiPWg]
"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
My beloved West Virginia.
Solidly Democratic for decades. Both WV's Senate and House were in Democratic control for over 70 consecutive years. We even voted for Dukakis in 1988. But for the last 16 years, we've been trending Rethug. Big time.
The polls for POTUS 2016 are crystal clear. Trump will win here in WV and Her Heinous will lose. My vote for Hillary would be a wasted vote, she can't win. My vote for Trump would be a wasted vote, he can't lose. The ONLY vote that I can cast that would NOT be a waste is for Jill Stein.
My vote for Jill will count towards her needed 5% threshold. My vote for Jill might, just might, help move the national dialogue towards the policies that we need so desperately need in America. Because of our antiquated electoral college, a vote for EITHER Trump or Hillary is a wasted vote in every non-battleground state, which is about 40 or so states. I'm for Jill. And I promise that my vote will not be wasted.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
If everyone thinks Jill can't win then it becomes a self-
fulfilling prophecy. If everyone thinks and acts as if Jill CAN win, then that can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Trump and Clinton are the two worst, least popular mainstream candidates since forever. This may be the one time that a third party can win. It has more to do with the lack of merit of the mainstream than with the merits of the third parties, but so what? Jill's smart, she'd do great.
Is Clinton worse than Trump? Is Trump worse than Clinton? Some people here think one, some think the other, and we all have similar policy desires. So I say it's too close to call. If we vote for Jill and she doesn't win, what has it hurt, since it probably doesn't matter which mainstream candidate gains the White House? Stop looking for incrementally better. Vote Jill.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Trump has a very lower class style, for all his money/education
I recently talked to someone who said she'd never vote for anyone who said "bigly." That's a class judgment, not a policy-based one.
I disagree.
I think it's a judgment based on perception of Trump's functional intelligence. If one is going to mount a campaign to keep immigrants out of the country, it would be nice if one were to actually speak our language better than a recent immigrant.
Frankly, after Trump's "California doesn't have a water shortage", followed closely by Clinton's testimony to Congress that her private email server handling Top Secret documents didn't have a password, I concluded that they are both too willfully brain-dead and clueless to lead a glee club, much less our Nation.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
Russia today may not be the Soviet Union
But Eastern European countries, with a history of being invaded by Russia, are not going to be happy at the prospect of no NATO to protect them.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Actually it's Russia that was invaded
first by Napoleon and then by Hitler. They had millions of civilian deaths before they rolled back the invasions and THEN rolled over Eastern Europe. Some analysts say that it was really Russia that defeated Hitler for the rest of the Allies. Russians say they don't start wars, but they finish them.
But yes, the occupation by the Soviet Union was harsh. It's gone now, but old grudges can last a long time, whoever started a Hatfields-McCoys feud.
Anyway, why would Russia want those small Eastern European countries? They don't have resources she needs. They'd just be a drain.
I think Scandinavian countries are also worried
There's a Norwegian TV series, I think on Netflix, about a future where NATO has abandoned them and they have been taken over by Russia, for their oil.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Occupied
Occupied
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
That's the one
Thanks
Beware the bullshit factories.
faulty history there
Pursuant to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the USSR invaded and occupied eastern Poland in September of 1939, coordinating military movements with the Nazis, who had invaded Poland from the west. Also pursuant to the Pact, the USSR invaded and occupied portions of Finland in November 1939, and then in June 1940 invaded and occupied Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and portions of Romania. All before the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941.
Russia is not the USSR
And it isn't communist any more. Stalin is gone (he killed huge numbers of Russians, too). We need to make distinctions and look at what's there now.
For those who had ancestry in those countries
and remember either the Russians (then Soviet Union) or the Germans (then Nazis) invading and occupying them, those memories, may be transferred by their parents or grandparents and internalized, for those it's not a question of being communist or not, it's a question of national and ethnic identity. Even those who never suffered under those occupations, because they weren't born yet, they pull it out of their hat as an emotional political argument.
Unfortunately. The fact that humans just react this way is constantly abused by propaganda in current times to inflame the populace and cause division, fear and hate.
At least that's the only thing I can come up with to explain, why it's possible to still cause tensions that might lead to wars or civil riots on the base of what happened seventy years ago.
I think I should pull out some hate against Sweden, because I think they once upon a time occupied my "home territory" in Schleswig Holstein, Germany. /s
It's not even fun to poke fun over it. Sigh.
no one
disputes that Russia is not the USSR and is not communist.
I was responding to your historically inaccurate assertions that "actually it's Russia that was invaded," that "they had millions of civilian deaths before they rolled back the invasions and THEN rolled over Eastern Europe"; that Russians "don't start wars, but they finish them." The USSR invaded and occupied multiple territories, before the Germans invaded and occupied them.
I'm not good on Russian history
But I know there's been a lot of Tsars and Tsarinas and some have invaded neighbors and been tryrannical.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Napoleon freaked them out--
so there's some truth to the comment.
And it only got worse after they took one in the face to stop Hitler. And they really, really did: 26 million dead is no joke, though it probably was to Stalin: "Hey, I've got a huge country w/a large population--just feed some more of those little guys to the cannons! I'll be damned if my former friend beats me." Or some such.
"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
the
Russian Empire was greedily swallowing up properties before Napoleon showed up: in Poland, in the Baltics, on the North American continent, in Sweden and Finland, throughout Siberia, in Manchuria, in Georgia, Moldavia, Ukraine, and Crimea.
Trump thinks outside the box because he can't find the box
Trump thinks outside the box because he has no clue where the box is. That said, it makes no strategic sense to re-start the Cold War against Russia as Hillary and the Neocons want to do. The profits of defense contractors ought not to drive policy.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
For all his apparent incoherence, Trump's right on Russia
and right about NATO. By antagonizing the world's second greatest nuclear power with an excellent military and much fine conventional weaponry, Hillary's tough regime change strategy for Syria will, not may, but WILL bring us head to head with the Russians. Putin is mad enough about Ukraine being split off from the old USSR but not mad enough to insist on having the whole country. He probably doesn't want the Nazified Western Ukraine and has been unwilling to start WW3 over it. The Mad Bomber gets a bee in her ass anytime she is thwarted from getting what she wants: "I want what I want when I want it"! She has neither the judgement nor the restraint to avoid dangerous Russian confrontation on Syria. When you push a bear into a corner, expect teeth and claws.
So HRC has been to 128 countries. BFD! You might call it diplomacy. I call it a scouting mission to see what our undeclared Empire can acquire most easily.
Trump is crazy--like a fox. He is disreputable and unpredictable. Medusa is too predictable. She will have a sudden change of heart (now there's an oxymoron for you) about TPP and realize what a wonderful thing it is. She will decide that fossil fuel extraction is not really a bad thing for our air or water--because Science: who believes that, anyway! (Note, daughter Chelsea has now become an expert on marijuana--very scientific anecdotal non-evidence, all published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results).
About Medusa's predictability: we know she will start new wars, despite fucking up all herm previous military inspirations. The only unknown here is "where to invade next".
Trump, to give him credit, does not want to antagonize Russia and in fact would prefer friendlier relations. I doubt that that he would have allowed the Russkies to obtain rights to 20% of our uranium supply--unlike Killary. BTW, how's that for judgement: Hellery sells off a strategic resource to the very country she is set on antagonizing. Talk about judgement (say what?). Eight years a Senator, 4 years a Secretary of State and still a doofus.
What does Hilliar expect from conquering Syria. Does she think Russia would want their most important mediterranean ally to become a forward base of the American Empire--Putin might just decide that Turkey would be a nice buffer zone. That would make Incirlik a very tempting target.
Back to Trump, he isn't all bad, though is mostly bad. Medusa is all bad.
Vote Green. Nuclear Winter will not be nice.
She's probably promised some
She's probably promised some of her donors Syria's large oil and gas deposits discovered by a Russian company who had signed an agreement with Syria - now the all-important American (business) interests see a chance to steal that by via American military invasion.
(Bonnie's essay)
http://caucus99percent.com/content/we-are-not-hearing-truth-about-aleppo...
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/9/22/russian-company-begins-...
Edit: whoops, hit the wrong thingy and hadn't block-quoted! And re-edited, as I'd transposed two words.
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.