In poker, a wild card can add to the fun of the game. But it throws off the odds and makes the hands more unpredictable. That’s why poker purists prefer to keep jokers and other wild cards out of the deck.
If Clinton wins the 99% fester on. If Trump wins there is the possibility that things come crashing down rather than festering. Two very bad choices...festering or crashing.
America is being held in a stress position and inundated with propaganda beyond all measure. This doesn't end well, folks. This election is farce of too many lifetimes. Oh well, at least almost no one is talking about 9/11...
Trump is right about NATO.
Thanks, John. Missing you while you are away. Hope you come back to the planet soon.
Hearing that the likes of Kristol and Kagan are refusing to support Trump is hardly in his disfavour. Aren't they the rabidly pro-Israel neocons who pushed America into the disastrous Middle East wars? This is almost reason enough, alone, for the electorate to vote Trump.
And he is willing to talk to the leader of North Korea? Oh, the Humanity. This will surely be the end of life-as-we-know-it in America. Do you really think that the American public is against negotiating with enemy states before bombing them? Furthermore, condemning him for how you think his meeting with Kim might be conducted is positively ludicrous.
As far as reducing military commitments abroad to allow more spending on domestic infrastructure, how unpopular can that be? NATO obsolete? Not if you like its war crimes in the Middle East and its continued aggressive push to the Russian borders. Americans are sick of war, sick of the killing and sick of the expense.
Yes, Trump is not a politician and he is not an insider of the Washington and New York elites that control the U.S.. That's the whole point. This election is not about Left/Right. It is about ousting the profiteers in control of U.S. policy at home and abroad. Trump may not be the ideal candidate (there's an understatement) but the voters in America do not want business as usual.
Think Trump can't make it? Have a look at this recent, well-argued refutation:
Let's hope that soon this whole controversy over Trump will be irrelevant. The day Bernie gets the nomination.
If nothing else, this election shows how unhinged and desperate the US empire has become. I am 66 years old and don't remember anything like this in a presidential election. The republican party has inundated the US people with a litany of racism and crassness for many decades and the chickens are coming home to roost.
Sanders campaign is the one sane response to the direction this country must go to avoid the worst consequences of a future of climate change and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Sublimeister, thanks for that post. Much of what Margaret Kimberley has to say is right on target. I understand her cynicism about the electoral process.
But I just don't understand why she (and apparently a large proportion of African-Americans) is so dismissive of Sanders.
Is it nothing that he worked for, and got arrested for supporting racial integration of housing back in the 60's? She misrepresents his position on police killings. Her derisive assessment of what she thinks Sanders would probably do in office, is unfair. That his many progressive policies would do more to improve black lives in America than any other candidate's, she does not admit. Judging from her comments, I think Ms Kimberley has not informed herself more than superficially regarding Sanders' platform.
If someone could clue me in as to why Black America is largely anti-Sanders, I'd be grateful. Because I'm totally flummoxed.
Trump is a pathological liar so nobody should believe anything he says. He is also extremely vindictive. He attacks anyone questioning his lies. His lies surrounding Trump University and his veterans benefit are glaring examples of what he is all about. Clearly he is a con artist. It is hard to overstate how dangerous he would be if he were president.
Do you have some special powers of prognostication unavailable to us ordinary mortals?
Trump and Clinton differ not in substance, only in style.
Trump is akin to a grizzly bear that is highly visble and makes a lot of noise. You can see him coming and might get away unscathed or minimally scathed.
Clinton is akin to a deadly pathogen whose damage you will not be aware of until its already done.
And here we are again just where the establishment wanted us to be. We are debating between their two evils, evil one and the other evil one, we are just where they wants us.
Excellent summary Cookies! I have two in my family. They took my portion of my families small fortune and convinced my 90 year old mother that it is my fault while convincing a stockbroker to risk his career.
I wont deny that. But why indeed did you fail to mention the pathological liar Hillary Clinton, unless doing so would cost you your pay-check.
Bizarre logic indeed. Nationalism to the rescue as means of curbing US Foreign Policy State violence?
Why is Trump pushing for a big military buildup, if he plans on reigning in Empire? Why does he say that the US should "take the oil" if he is interested in setting a more peaceful course. Why is he stating that he would increase military deployments of the Air Force and Navy off the Coast of China to intimidate China on trade, if he is interested in pursuing a peaceful US foreign policy? Why would he ban all Muslims from the US if he is interested in pursuing a more peaceful US foreign policy? These are what? Peaceful positions?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Am I taking you to task on Clinton? No.
It takes not special powers or even average intelligence to rationally conclude that Trump would be dangerous as President.
Hell no I'm not voting for Clinton either.
I'm not impressed by this fallacious argument from that linked counterpunch article…
We know that Clinton is part of the West’s foreign policy establishment.
And we know that Trump is not. So why fear Trump more than Clinton?
Has Trump been in the position yet of being "part of the West's foreign policy establisment"?
That whole article is based on the premise that Trump is only a nationalist, and not an imperialist. Where is the evidence that proves this point?
Move on to another point, because there is no point in that point. And this argument lies at the heart of the defense of Trump by you and others, who of course say they really aren't defending Trump.
Certainly you are. You and others on the left, or "left" are engaging in the worse kind of lesser evil arguments concerning Clinton vs Trump, and in order to do so, you have to actually defend Trump.
And, if you are actually making the argument the article makes, then holy crap you are actually hoping a Trump presidency will bring complete destruction to the US through stoking xenophobia?
By the way, Trump might not have been a cheerleader for the Iraq war, but he sure as hell didn't oppose it. Another mythology repeated in defense of Trump was that he was against the Iraq war. You will not find one public pronouncement by Trump before the war started. What, months of build up weren't enough for the Trump to oppose the war?
Sure now he does when it is politically expedient to do so. How about the first Iraq War? Did he oppose that? Any evidence that Trump has, previous to running for President, made any noise whatsoever about US foreign policy being unjust?
Trump will be an interventionist at the least, and has I believe a great potential for being the bloodiest President in our country's history.
Did I just argue you should vote for Clinton? No.
I think there is plenty of evidence that Trump would be an imperialist, given his imperialist dogma of demonizing the other.
How else have so many imperialists acts of US foreign policy been justified?
With all due respect, keep your nuance and I'll keep openly and clearly pointing to facts about Trump to trump any nuanced defense of some realpolitik from the "left" that packages a scenario that the greater good would be for Trump to bring a full blown xenophobia horrific breakdown to supposedly save the world from US imperialism.
I'm not engaging in a hypothetical, because well, I'm not voting for either Hillary or Trump.
Here is the Trump on Social Security, among many quotes by him that are all over the map. But hey, you seem interested in what he has actually said on this topic. Well here is one…
The solution to the Great Social Security crisis couldn’t be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds. Federal guidelines would make sure that your money is diversified, that it is invested in sound mutual funds or bond funds, and not in emu ranches. The national savings rate would soar and billions of dollars would be cycled from savings, to productive assets, to retirement money. And unlike the previous system, the assets in this retirement account could be left to one’s heirs, used to start a business, or anything else one desires.
Privatization would be good for all of us. Directing Social Security funds into personal accounts invested in real assets would swell national savings, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into jobs and the economy. These investments would boost national investment, productivity, wages, and future economic growth.
Does he sound like he wouldn't touch Social Security on this particular Trump day in his head?
When would the privatize SS Trump return? Day one? Who the hell knows?
Regarding trade. Yes he has made statements that I agree with. He also has used for his own personal gain, outsourcing work to both China and Mexico for Trump branded items.
Who the hell knows what he believes? Asset?
Regarding Putin. There we are to take him at his word. I wonder if Putin would insist that the nuclear option be left "on the table" in relation to whether or not nukes could be dropped on a country in Europe.
Putin certainly is more stable than Trump.
Again, you disqualify real concerns about Trump, by insisting that those things he says, or publishes on his website as policy proposals, can just be discounted as "inane blather".
It's the Inane Blather Trump Defense by "leftists".
I'm not falling for anything. That's the other meme popping up by Trump Neo Leftists. That I'm simply a victim of all of this propaganda being directed against the jerk known as Donald Fucking Trump.
I know a dangerous dickhead when I see one, and when I hear one.
Apparently you're incapable of looking at things in a nuanced manner rather than resorting to vulgarity in describing the candidate.
That pretty much takes the cake. Here you are defending someone who stokes hatred among the masses for fucking political gain, who boasts that he would order the military to kill the families of terrorist suspects (he backed off of this after receiving a letter signed by many in the military), then backed off and states that he would work to make torture legal, who at rallies approves of people being punched and roughed up, and the rest.
But you apparently have a problem with me for using foul language referring to Donald Fucking Trump.
That's rich don't you think?
I read Parry's piece, and he makes some excellent points and Clinton would indeed be a dangerous neoconservative and neoliberal President who could walk us into a nuclear war with Russia.
And Trump who has even proposed using a nuke against ISIS, and refused to back off "taking it off the table" is less dangerous?
Regarding Trump and the wealthy. Well damn, they guy who just lost a fight against those under his employ who wanted to unionize is a friend of the common man!
He wants to lower corporate tax rates.
Neutral in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Guess you missed the pronouncement by Donald Fucking Trump that he as President would move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I'm certain Palestinians are all for that. Didn't he speak at AIPAC?
here is a quote from Donald Fucking Trump at AIPAC…
“we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel.”
You mention that he's all over the map, this is no doubt true, as are many candidates who run for office. Yet you're 100% convinced he's a dangerous candidate. Seems like you're picking and choosing and coming down on a side in which you've been influenced (whether you're aware of it or not) by the constant vilification and scorn thrown his way.
That is just such a bizarre defense of Trump by the Trump Neo Leftists. That since he is all over the map, THEN the worst things that he has actually been consistent on like the issue of torture, building a wall, and banning Muslims from entering the country are to not be of a concern. Because for those things to concern me, well, I'm simply being influenced by all of the vilification of Donald Fucking Trump.
What's not to vilify? This is just so bizarre, that you are pushing in my face an argument that I'm a victim of propaganda. What he isn't just being straightforward? I thought that was one of the things that Trump Neo Leftists find refreshing about Donald Fucking Trump.
It's so damn refreshing when he stokes hatred among people, is recorded stoking hatred among his millions of followers, and very refreshing that those FACTS can then be construed that, well, it's just Donald Fucking Trump here and if you believe that says something about how he would behave as president, well, you just aren't being dismissive enough of his words and actions, and instead have been a victim of reportage of those actions and words.
How low can you go to defend Trump? Oh wait, you aren't defending Trump.
Cluck cluck cluck.
"Your attacks on Trump are just so bizarre in that you routinely say he's all over the map in his pronouncements yet you're 100% certain he's a dangerous cretin. Huh? "
Good fucking grief. It is those who are defending Trump like yourself (who of course aren't defending Trump, LOL) who bring as a defense for Trump that he is all over the map, THUS he is somehow a blank slate. At the same time, you attack someone like myself as being duped by anti-Trump propaganda. Jesus, how do you keep track of all of those angles?
So, for the media to be engaging in propaganda against poor Trump, then you surely are asserting that Trump is being misrepresented, no? Well, if he is being misrepresented, then what positions does he hold that he is being misrepresented on? Then you point those things out to me, do you not?
I then actually agree that he has stated for instance, some things regarding trade agreements that are actually true and reasonable. His words. I point out that yes, he stated those things on trade, yet he also has through his corporation outsourced jobs to Mexico and China. Activities that he is supposedly against.
And you accuse me of picking and choosing?
What I have stated over and over again, is that he has been CONSISTENT in his statements about building the wall, and his statements about banning all Muslims from entry into this country, and his statements about making torture legal, and his statements about making the US Military "so big that no one will even think of messing with us", yet that consistency that I point out gets what response from leftists who defend Donald Fucking Trump?
The response, is "what, you believe what Trump says?" or, "what, you believe what the MSM has made up about Trump?"
The consistent statements that Donald Fucking Trump has made, that have been made in front of video cameras and microphones are according to you, not really worth worrying about.
Because, every time I repeat these things, his own words and his own positions that he has been consistent about, then leftists who defend Trump always deflect from that. Always attack me ultimately personally for repeating like a broken record the FACT that he has engaged in stoking HATRED among millions of followers for political gain.
What blows my mind, is that you apparently don't find any real signs of danger that we have someone who wants the power of the President of the US who states these things consistently, and who stokes hatred of the most base kind in order to get that power.
Your preoccupation and fears over Trump almost seem to be a paranoia bordering on delusion.
Ah directly in keeping with the pattern of those supposedly on the left, who defend Trump, is the personal attack.
I have characterized those who have emerged on this forum defending Trump, and claiming to be on the left, as Trump Neo Leftists, or Neo Leftist Trump supporters. I'm attacking their arguments as being pro Trump, in some kind of new movement among the "left".
I haven't accused you of having mental problems. I'm taking issue with your Trump advocacy.
What is with your constant preoccupation with Trump and apparent (apparent) refusal to attack Killary?
What, I've come to the defense of Hillary Clinton? I've stated many times that she is a war criminal, and I've argued against the notion that Sanders supporters should vote for her against Trump, as a lesser evil.
That's not good enough?
Seems like I've got you beat in the arena of consistently arguing against evil, whatever the brand, Trump or Clinton.
You insisting that I engage in a hypothetical is your attempt to have me go on record that I am defending Clinton. I'm not, so you can just give that up.
I'm arguing against BOTH Trump and Clinton.
You are engaging in apologetics for someone who would make torture legal because you absolutely dismiss any concern for it, and in fact are engaged in personal attacks against those voicing such concern.
Have I attacked you for criticisms of Clinton? No.
Get the difference?