This outstanding book by Diana Johnstone is required reading for all who care about humanity.
It is readily available at Amazon.ca I recommend the Kindle version as you will be highlighting like crazy. Johnstone has the goods on Clinton, and must be stopped.
This outstanding book by Diana Johnstone is required reading for all who care about humanity.
It is readily available at Amazon.ca I recommend the Kindle version as you will be highlighting like crazy. Johnstone has the goods on Clinton, and must be stopped.
If you mean Clinton must be stopped, then the only person in a position to do that would be Donald Trump. Is supporting Trump the plan?
Johnstone has the goods on Clinton, and must be stopped.
Indeed. Stop Johnstone now!
Meanwhile, though, why is this in Canadian Politics?
This outstanding book by Diana Johnstone is required reading for all who care about humanity.
It is readily available at Amazon.ca I recommend the Kindle version as you will be highlighting like crazy. Johnstone has the goods on Clinton, and must be stopped.
If you mean Clinton must be stopped, then the only person in a position to do that would be Donald Trump. Is supporting Trump the plan?
There is nothing to celebrate if you are a human on this planet. The most destructive and highly armed nation on the planet is about to elect someone truly evil to lead it.
So supporting either of these murderous imperialists would be a good idea?
Meanwhile, though, why is this in Canadian Politics?
Because they are both running to rule the world.
Ah, thanks for that. I thought it might be indigo 007 spamming the same thing to multiple forums again.
Maybe it should go in Feminism too, since both the author and Hillary/Shillary/Killary are both women?
Presidential elections are always close. Only a small number of Republicans have to stay home for Clinton to win but she is actually 14% ahead in the polls right now.
Having said that maybe a Trump presidency wouldn't be so bad. The people with real power wouldn't listen to him. It would cause a constitutional crisis. Individual states might even start seceding in horror of what the union has become.
There is nothing to celebrate if you are a human on this planet. The most destructive and highly armed nation on the planet is about to elect someone truly evil to lead it.
So supporting either of these murderous imperialists would be a good idea?
Joe Scarborough who's been cheerleading Trump on his shitty show on MSNBC for months on end said when meeting with top military officials,he asked about the 'nukes' 3 times and at one point asked 'Why don't we use them?' Seems Scarborough's candidate is so revolting he disgusts Joe Scarborough LOL!
Donald Trump is a maniac. BTW,what do people think of Don Jr's trip to Philadelphia,Mississippi claiming the confederate flag must stay on the flag of Mississippi?
Seriously. He's that bad. Shilary seems sane,reasoned and nice compared to this orange piece of shit. Makes me wish Americans would flock to Stein or Johnson.
The political environment in DC is toxic and tops global warming and terrorism as a real threat to humanity. Maybe the 'United' States can become the 'Divided' States so sane people can live in a sane world. Leave the red states to a nightmare of their own making.Sooner or later even the most vehement knuckle dragger will get the message.
It's the same every single election.
In the run-up to election day: "All the candidates are the same!! There's no difference!!"
The day after: "Which morons voted for the worst one?? How could the electorate curse us like this for four years??"
I can empathize with Americans who don't feel they have any truly great choices, but at the same time I genuinely feel that if someone secretly replaced John Tory with Doug Ford, or dropped Stephen Harper into 24 Sussex, we'd probably notice a difference, despite them all being as identical as any four eggs in the carton.
There's a lot of talk about Gary Johnson getting to 15% thus making him eligible to participate in the debates. This could change things,especially if he starts getting flooded with money.
There's the Bernie vote,the independents,Libertarian Republicans ( Liberals in denial).. It would hurt Shilary but it would hurt Trump as well. I think both Trump and Clinton wouldn't pull much higher than 25% with Johnson in the debates.
I agree with Johnson on many issues but economically we're on totally different teams. Having said that,I think he'd be a great President if it turns out he really is principled on his progressive points of view.
I think Millenials would be attracted to his 'liberal' side. But it will be harder to sell his conservative side.
A big "L" libertarian would totally clean up on the atheist/rational/neckbeard vote, but without the implied endorsement of Jesus, he's rowing with one oar.
A wonderful system where a totally unpredictable foul mouthed idiot is running against the oligarchies chosen candidate. Of course if you trust the American oligarchy you have no reason to fear what Clinton might do. She, unlike Trump, is totally predictable and she is a war monger who likes to facilitate regime changes in various parts of the world. Like most places on the internet the rousing endorsement of Hillary here is, She Isn't Trump.
I can see why all American candidates believe it is such a good system that any country that doesn't follow it can be attacked under the USA's Responsibility to Protect all people on the planet from their governments.
Like most places on the internet the rousing endorsement of Hillary here is, She Isn't Trump.
Well, in a functionally two-party system, at least until Americans realize there are other parties, it shouldn't be surprising if the "UP" candidate points out that they're not "DOWN".
But I think we go through this EVERY election, when someone suggests that there's no difference between breaking your leg, and breaking your leg in two places.
But I think we go through this EVERY election, when someone suggests that there's no difference between breaking your leg, and breaking your leg in two places.
So I guess there is no use having babble. Its all the same every time
We can still share recipes.
OR, we could drop the acting out, and acknowledge that even a binary option might have a better choice and a worse one. Not to give aid and succour to that "better" one, or whatever.
We can still share recipes.
OR, we could drop the acting out, and acknowledge that even a binary option might have a better choice and a worse one. Not to give aid and succour to that "better" one, or whatever.
Drop the acting out. My aren't we judgemental today.
The problem is not whether one is better than the other but rather is one acceptable on any level or are they both unacceptable choices.
If they're both unacceptable then for sure voters shouldn't accept them.
Except that the only way to not accept them is to recuse oneself from voting, and that means having to accept whatever others voted for. Or voting Green or Libertarian and saying "well, at least I tried tilting the windmill!!"
As long as everyone's OK with that, and we won't have to hear four years of whining about which one wins.
As long as everyone's OK with that, and we won't have to hear four years of whining about which one wins.
If it bothers you too much you can always recuse yourself from the threads that don't rise to your illustrious standards.
This outstanding book by Diana Johnstone is required reading for all who care about humanity.
It is readily available at Amazon.ca I recommend the Kindle version as you will be highlighting like crazy. Johnstone has the goods on Clinton, and must be stopped.
If you mean Clinton must be stopped, then the only person in a position to do that would be Donald Trump. Is supporting Trump the plan?
There is nothing to celebrate if you are a human on this planet. The most destructive and highly armed nation on the planet is about to elect someone truly evil to lead it.
So supporting either of these murderous imperialists would be a good idea?
I don't think anyone is "celebrating". However, whether we like it or not, one of these two "murderous imperialists" is going to win this gong show.
Agreed, Americans have a pretty poor choice before them. However, it isn't a theoretical choice. Given what Trump has said about women, Mexican immigrants and African Americans among others, there are good reasons why some voters will choose what they see as the lesser evil.
Ignoring their views with a dismissive "plague on both your houses" pronouncement is not fair who have been targeted by Trump and his ilk. If David Duke can see a difference between them (and he obviously does), it's imperative that opponents of the KKK and other right-wing organizations think carefully before they cast their ballots.
Trump is merely saying what he thinks will get him elected. It appears that saying very racist things about Mexicans and Muslims won him the Republican nomination however that is not going to win him a general election. I would not be surprised to see him change his talking points and ease up on the Hispanic bashing but I suspect that the Muslim bashing is a keeper for him.
I am not an American so I can't vote. I would be an odd American anyways since I don't believe in American Exceptionalism. If I could I would likely would have worked at trying to get third party candidates elected even though they had no realistic chance of forming government. I say that because that is what I did in Canada. I have never and would never under any circumstances vote for a Liberal even if the choice was an even worse Tory.
If it bothers you too much you can always recuse yourself from the threads that don't rise to your illustrious standards
I know where there's sand to bury my head in, if needs be.
But if both candidates are the same, why should there be any bellyaching at all?
To put it another way, if it really is "heads OR tails, you lose" then what merit is there in complaining that the coin came up tails?
This whole "no difference" thing is really getting old. One election, sure. Two in a row... maybe. But every single election?
The Clinton Body Count.(from Doug Henwood)
"... the Clinton related body count so far this election cycle: Five in just under six weeks – four convenient deaths plus one suicide…
1) Shawn Lucas, Sanders supporter who served papers to DNC on the Fraud Case (DOD August 2, 2016)
2) Victor Thorn, Clinton author (and Holocaust denier, probably the least credible on this list) shot himself in an apparent suicide. Conspiracy theorists at Mystery Writers of America said some guys will do anything to sell books. (DOD August, 2016)
3) Seth Conrad Rich, Democratic staffer, aged 27, apparently on his way to speak to the FBI about a case possibly involving the Clintons. The D.C. murder was not a robbery. (DOD July 8, 2016)
4) John Ashe, UN official who allegedly crushed his own throat while lifting weights, because he watched too many James Bond films and wanted to try the move where the bad guy tries to…oh, never mind. “He was scheduled to testify against the Clintons and the Democrat Party.” (DOD June 22, 2016)
5) Mike Flynn, the Big Government Editor for Breitbart News. Mike Flynn’s final article was published the day he died, “Clinton Cash: Bill, Hillary Created Their Own Chinese Foundation in 2014.” (DOD June 23, 2016)"
I'm sure it's just all a big coincidence. But anytime someone is in a position to bring down HRC, they wind up dead.
Nobody made the connection; nobody gets a gold star. You have to connect the dots. NATO has it in its power to seriously undermine America' ability to wage America's war on the rest of the world, by saying "Hell no, we won't go" Disbanding NATO is a giant step forward for global peace. But NATO leaders are going to have to show some guts for this to happen.
This is very much about Canadian politics and everything else as the US has in its power to destroy the world and Washington's neocons are willing to risk it. Clinton is one of them.
I can see that several commenters here would greatly benefit from actually reading the book instead of just mouthing off.
Erm, babble is THE place to mouth off..
I can see that several commenters here would greatly benefit from actually reading the book instead of just mouthing off.
I hate Shilary. She's a corporatist and a hawk. But some of the Faux News/Alex Jones rhetoric being posted in this thread is a little much.
Looks like a brilliant read.
The Elective Affinities of Hillary Clinton
And so this woman, the Agrippina on the Potomac, will sit behind the “grand chessboard,” playing with human pawns. She will make a good empress, even though less than 40 percent of the country’s voters consider her “trustworthy.” But the people’s trust is irrelevant. They are themselves untrustworthy. Having come out from under the spell of “charming” Obama to realize that he was a magician’s trick, the people are spinning off center—the “extreme center,” as Tariq Ali wittily calls it. The people need whipping back into the herd. For that, a virago will do. She will ride rough-shod with Sin and Death, the moral allies of the empire, over hurdles of sovereignties and international law. She will further ravish the already enfeebled Constitution before eating it whole because the inevitable cost of an expansionist foreign policy is the loss of economic and political freedom at home.
"These three affinities—with finance, war, and imperialism—make Hillary Clinton the perfect mate for president of the financial-imperial White House. Picture her in jodhpurs and pith helmet astride the financial bull, taking on the “white woman’s burden,” and riding the humanitarian “savage wars for peace.”"
There's a couple of things that should be remembered.
The president of the USA has very little power. All bills have to come from the House of Representatives, and pass through the Senate. The president has the power of veto, but cannot initiate legislation.
USA foreign policy has not changed since WW2, and it's not likely to change now. Whatever Trump says, he, by himself, would not be able to make any changes to USA foreign policy (that applies to all other candidates for president as well).
The only possible changes will be in domestic policy, and to do that will requjire the president to negotiate with Congress.
Which explains why the USA presidential election generates so much heat, and so little light. Still, the Democratic Party broke the 230 year old colour barrier to the presidency, and now they look as though they may break the 240 year old gender barrier. Neither of those developments may make much difference now, but they very well could in the future.
At the same time, the 'tone' of the president can influence the culture of the society. That may, in fact, be the most power the president has. I'll just point out that it was the Democrats who brought the mothers of murdered blacks, and the parents of a Muslim soldier, to speak at their convention, giving them a voice when the whole country was watching. I think it's fair enough to be quite cynical about those choices, but...given all that, who would you rather have as president?
There's a couple of things that should be remembered.
The president of the USA has very little power. All bills have to come from the House of Representatives, and pass through the Senate. The president has the power of veto, but cannot initiate legislation.
USA foreign policy has not changed since WW2, and it's not likely to change now. Whatever Trump says, he, by himself, would not be able to make any changes to USA foreign policy (that applies to all other candidates for president as well).
The only possible changes will be in domestic policy, and to do that will requjire the president to negotiate with Congress.
Which explains why the USA presidential election generates so much heat, and so little light. Still, the Democratic Party broke the 230 year old colour barrier to the presidency, and now they look as though they may break the 240 year old gender barrier. Neither of those developments may make much difference now, but they very well could in the future.
At the same time, the 'tone' of the president can influence the culture of the society. That may, in fact, be the most power the president has. I'll just point out that it was the Democrats who brought the mothers of murdered blacks, and the parents of a Muslim soldier, to speak at their convention, giving them a voice when the whole country was watching. I think it's fair enough to be quite cynical about those choices, but...given all that, who would you rather have as president?
Good point, Rev Pesky. The KKK's endorsement of Trump says a lot about the tone of his campaign. The choice facing American voters is depressing, to be sure, but it's a choice that has to be made.
The choice between a fascist and a bellicose proponent of "bomb Assad" isn't a choice at all. Rev Pesky seems to have provided a good argument why the POTUS is a hood ornament on a runaway freight train, ... but then forgotten to add that we should pay more attention to the direction the train is going, and what to do about it, than to the cosmetic figure attached to the front of it.
The choice between a fascist and a bellicose proponent of "bomb Assad" isn't a choice at all. Rev Pesky seems to have provided a good argument why the POTUS is a hood ornament on a runaway freight train, ... but then forgotten to add that we should pay more attention to the direction the train is going, and what to do about it, than to the cosmetic figure attached to the front of it.
Well, this thread was about Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and that's what I addressed. In my defence I did mention the continuity of USA foreign policy over the years, and the futility of expecting some president to change that.
As far was what we could do about it, I am open to suggestions. I suspect there isn't much anybody can do about it. However weak and disjointed the left is in Canada, the situation is the USA is much worse. There isn't any organized left to speak of, thus there isn't any organization to provide the leadership that change would require.
It is a dangerous situation. We have seen how easy it is for a demagogue to incite the disaffected elements of their society. I honestly wish I had a concrete suggestion to make, but I don't. There is a lot of anger and confusion in USA society. It will get worse before it gets better.
As far was what we could do about it, I am open to suggestions.
What if we all called her "Killary"?
I'm LOLing and ROFLing at the same time!
What if we all called her "Killary"?
The Hillarator?
What if we all called her "Killary"?The Hillarator?
Perhaps the best thing is to ask American Muslims and Mexican immigrants in the US what we should call her. If they suggest "Killary" or "Hillarator", then we'll know we're on the right track.
Well, Luciana Bohne calls her Agrippina on the Potomac after the mother of the Roman Emperor Nero.
Ruthless, ambitious, violent, and conniving, Hillary Clinton’s Roman imperial analog is Agrippina, Nero’s mother and Claudius’ niece and murderous wife. Her ferocious chemistry makes her kindred by choice to the ferocity of the empire.
A grotesque power-fest at the Democratic Party Convention in Philadelphia left me feeling about Hillary Clinton the way P. G. Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster felt about his Aunt Agatha—“the one who chews broken bottles and kills rats with her teeth.” There is something disquieting and secretively lascivious about her open-mouthed cackle. She doesn’t so much laugh as lusts. She reminded me, too, of the mythical basilisk in the bestiary at the convention—the queen among the serpents. The basilisk of legend, wearing a king’s crown on his head, is only twelve-fingers long, but his venom withers all living plants in his wake. His gaze is enough to kill, according to Pliny the Elder. Only the droppings of a weasel have the potent odor to kill him, but it didn’t work with this basilisk. Her weasel endorsed her, embraced her, kissed her. His odor and her venom neutralized each other and merged into the unity party of the Serpent and the Weasel.
Some plain-speaking and honest analysis there. If only it were a three-hour YouTube video that we all need to watch in order to "get it".
So much attention on Shilary while Orange Hitler is not stirring any panic?
The choices are bleak and pathetic but it is what it is and always will be until Americans (and Canadians) finally figure it out.
A xenphobic,race-baiting,mysogynist narcissist heaving up his chin while pouting his lips and asking 'If we got (nukes) Why don't we use (nukes)?
This is a dangerous blowhard that makes Nixon,Reagan and Clinton seem like progressive and competent men we can now wax nostagic to. Back in the 'good old days'. This Orangutan Fueher makes Bush come across as someone who actually studied and excelled at Harvard or Yale (whichever one Daddy could buy) And can you imagine the type of authoritarian backward minded lunatics he'll fill SCOTUS ?
America has a seriously shitty choice of candidates (unless Americans actually DID figure it out and voted for Jill Stein...or at the very least Gary Johnson...Either one is superior to the Orange Menace and Grandma Dynamite)
In the immortal words of George Carlin,people will continue electing these rich c***suckers that don't give a fuck about you - at all,at all.
The system is rigged and the table is tilted............
Perhaps the best thing is to ask American Muslims and Mexican immigrants in the US what we should call her. If they suggest "Killary" or "Hillarator", then we'll know we're on the right track.
The people of Honduras I am sure call her many things. If she only promises to kill people outside of the US, which she has, then that's all right by us Westerners. No problem with her killing Muslims in Libya and Syria and Latin Americans when ever the need arises to replace a democratically elected government that gets too uppity with her Wall Street backers.
I know it's a strange believe but I value the lives of Syrians and Palestinians and Haitians and Hondurans just as much as I value the lives of Americans. I know I know that is truly evil and bizarre but I can't help it.
I know it's a strange believe but I value the lives of Syrians and Palestinians and Haitians and Hondurans just as much as I value the lives of Americans. I know I know that is truly evil and bizarre but I can't help it.
The smug, and spiritually impoverished reply, of course - and even by our friends on the left in the NDP - is that such people don't vote in our (Canadian or US) elections.
3. The Deep State requires relatively little of elected officials, even the President. A rubber stamp of existing policies is the primary requirement (see the Obama presidency for an example).
But the Deep State prefers a leader that can successfully sell the Deep State's agenda to the American public. (President Obama has done a very credible job of supporting the Imperial Project agenda. I think it's clear the Deep State supported President Obama's re-election.) A politician who's primary characteristic is untrustworthiness is poorly equipped to sell anything, especially something as complex and increasingly unpopular as the Imperial Project....from zero hedge
...is the reversal in support of Trump, in the polls, a first sign?
Where are the movements to take on the real power structure?
I know it's a strange believe but I value the lives of Syrians and Palestinians and Haitians and Hondurans just as much as I value the lives of Americans. I know I know that is truly evil and bizarre but I can't help it.The smug, and spiritually impoverished reply, of course - and even by our friends on the left in the NDP - is that such people don't vote in our (Canadian or US) elections.
So far, the leader of the KKK and now the leader of the US Nazi Party has endorsed Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/07/american-nazi-party-leader-trump-opportunity
They appear to be unimpressed with Hillary, which makes me wonder what they see in him that they don't see in her (and what they see in him that other folks don't).
I know it's a strange believe but I value the lives of Syrians and Palestinians and Haitians and Hondurans just as much as I value the lives of Americans. I know I know that is truly evil and bizarre but I can't help it.The smug, and spiritually impoverished reply, of course - and even by our friends on the left in the NDP - is that such people don't vote in our (Canadian or US) elections.
So far, the leader of the KKK and now the leader of the US Nazi Party has endorsed Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/07/american-nazi-party-leader-trump-opportunity
They appear to be unimpressed with Hillary, which makes me wonder what they see in him that they don't see in her (and what they see in him that other folks don't).
I know it's a strange believe but I value the lives of Syrians and Palestinians and Haitians and Hondurans just as much as I value the lives of Americans. I know I know that is truly evil and bizarre but I can't help it.The smug, and spiritually impoverished reply, of course - and even by our friends on the left in the NDP - is that such people don't vote in our (Canadian or US) elections.
So far, the leader of the KKK and now the leader of the US Nazi Party has endorsed Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/07/american-nazi-party-leader-trump-opportunity
They appear to be unimpressed with Hillary, which makes me wonder what they see in him that they don't see in her (and what they see in him that other folks don't).
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think there is anything good about Trump. I can hate both Liberals and Conservatives no matter what the superficial differences there are between the two parties. In Canada us third party types have a saying; "Liberal Tory same old story." I can hate both Republicans and Democrats because they are both murderous imperialist parties that want to rule the world. If no one works to build a third party that is not militaristic then nothing will change for the people of the planet. Chosing one over the other is not a choice it is an admission of defeat and an abandonment of the political arena to evil.
Unfortunately despite the fact that they claim to represent the world the US will not allow others to vote in its elections. If they did I can guarantee neither of these blood thirsty candidates would win.
I disagree with those who say it doesn't make any difference who is the president.
Though, who will be ultimately the most destructive of the 2 creatures running is anyones guess.
As Chomsky points out, to have the irrational, unpredictable, climate denier Trump as leader could be the death knell of the planet. He would "hold his nose" and vote Hilary in a swing state.
I couldn't fault him for that, as I couldn't fault someone for refusing to vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
Contrary to the gist of some comments here, the president has a great deal of discretionary power when it comes to making undeclared war and sowing mayhem through many avenues.
Circumvention of Constitutional checks has been a legalistic playground. Most decisions for immediate or discrete military action have little input from Congress. Most recently reported:
The rules for Obama’s “kill list” were just released—and Congress has almost no input
http://rare.us/story/the-rules-for-obamas-kill-list-were-just-released-a...
In other instances, beneficial effects of presidential war decisions is best evidenced by Kennedy and the Cuban Missle Crisis where he stood against the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and may have postponed the obliteration of the planet:
The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba: Kennedy was skeptical."They, no more than we, can let these things go by without doing something. They can't, after all their statements, permit us to take out their missiles, kill a lot of Russians, and then do nothing. If they don't take action in Cuba, they certainly will in Berlin."[40]
Kennedy concluded that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume "a clear line" to conquer Berlin. Kennedy also believed that U.S. allies would think of the U.S. as "trigger-happy cowboys" who lost Berlin because they could not peacefully resolve the Cuban situation.[41]
We can't depend on such circumspection from Clinton vis a vis potential conflict with Russia in Syria over her avowed regime change agenda.
The emails released so far show her as by far the most aggressive player in the Obama administration, constantly pushing for more violence and sometimes being thwarted by POTUS.
I just saw this, published yesterday, pertinent to my last point:
Ex-CIA Director Who Endorsed Clinton Calls for Killing Iranians and Russians in SyriaMurtaza HussainAug. 9 2016, 1:49 p.m.
....He compared his proposal to American support for groups that targeted Russian forces in Afghanistan during the 1980’s — efforts that later helped incubate al Qaeda.
He seemed unconcerned about how other parties might respond to such actions, beyond speculating that they might provide leverage for future negotiations.
If put into effect, Morell’s plans would entail a massive escalation of American covert military involvement in Syria that would bring the United States much closer to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.
Morell’s endorsement of Clinton was quickly seen as a sign that he was interested in a role in a possible Clinton administration. He wrote that Clinton would be a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” to the conflict in Syria....
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-ca...
We have babblers who express approval of Morell's sentiments.
How far this place has fallen.
I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?
I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?
I think the question is, would Donald Trump do something different. Would he, for instance, be more circumspect about using USA military around the world?
The comparisons of Trump and Clinton -- and particularly those that determine there's no noticeable difference between the two -- seem wholly concerned with foreign policy.
Are there any differences in terms of domestic policy? If it's true that they're identical otherwise, perhaps differences in domestic policy will be the decision drivers for voters.
