Trump was a disaster. Somebody call Sean Hannity, he'll tell you I was against the Iraq War! If I don't pay any federal taxes, it just means I'm smart!
He just took the bait every time Hillary dangled it in front of him. She let him have it with his "stamina" line. Trump seemed to keep repeating his stump speech lines, forgetting that she was there to refute them. Then he seemed to run out of energy about halfway through.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Whatever Hillary was (is) suffering from was not in evidence during last night's debate.
I'm not so sure:
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/hillary...-parkinson
Dawn Meredith Wrote:She had total command of the facts and beat the Donald's ass. Notable low points for the Donald: Hillary pointed out how Trump looked forward to the housing crises of 08 so he could clean up. His reply : "That's business". Later when Hillary pointed out that the only years we have seen Donald's taxes he paid no federal tax. His comment? "That's smart". But his fans don't care.
Anymore than Rodham's, it would appear, at the serial carnage she has championed across the globe. There are exceptions, of course:
VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON IS A PRIVILEGEONE NOT SHARED BY THE PEOPLE SHE'LL BOMB
Yes, vote for her. But then prepare to fight her hawkish policies every step of the way.
BY MARC DAALDER
SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
http://inthesetimes.com/features/voting_...arism.html
Quote:Not the privilege of being white in America, or straight in America, or a man in America, but the privilege of being in America. By choosing to vote for Hillary Clinton and embracing her as a positive, progressive choice, her supporters are exercising a privilege restricted to American citizens who, in all likelihood, won't experience the deadly results of her foreign policy.
Looking to Clinton's checkered past of foreign interventionism should give us a strong idea of how she'll act in the Oval Office. The first and most obvious decision is Hillary's vote for the war in Iraqa war that has left more than 100,000 civilians dead. This was what Barack Obama hammered her on in the 2008 primary, and is a decision she has since renounced.
Clinton has not, however, seemed to learn from the mistake. As Secretary of State, her support for intervention and regime change continued unabated. In 2009, she helped enable the perpetrators of the military overthrow of the democratically elected President of Honduras, refusing to label it a coup despite immediate condemnation from the rest of the international community, and also declining to cut off U.S. aid to the country. In the years since, dozens of indigenous leaders, activists, LGBT people, and other marginalized Hondurans have been killed by the new regime. These killings only top off what The Nation's Greg Grandin terms "an all-out assault on [the Honduran] peopletorture, murder, militarization of the countryside, repressive laws, such as the absolute ban on the morning-after pill, the rise of paramilitary security forces, and the wholesale deliverance of the country's land and resources to transnational pillagers."
In subsequent years, Clinton continued to meddle in Latin Americamost notably in Haiti, where her State Department engineered the ascension of their preferred candidate to the country's Presidency. Michel Martelly, the ally in question, found himself in in third place after the first round of voting, narrowly missing the runoff behind second-leading vote-getter Jude Celestin. That is, until Clinton told Haiti's then-President René Préval to put him in the run-off anyway, ahead of Celestine, or else Congress would cut off aid to the island nation. Since then, Martelly has operated under a neoliberal, business- and NGO-friendly framework that has led to increased political turmoil and impoverishment of the Haitian people.
Then, of course, there is the crowning achievement of Hillary Clinton's State Department, the ultimate interventionLibya. As the North African country devolved into a state of chaotic civil war in 2011, it was ultimately Hillary who persuaded President Obama to intervene with a NATO air campaign. When Colonel Gaddafi, the nation's dictator, was killed in October, Clinton crowed to CBS, "We came, we saw, he died."
Yet, that wasn't the end of the Libya legacy. A democratically-elected government failed to disarm the fractious militias that had unseated the Colonel, and soon the country had returned to civil war once more. In the years since, the Islamic State has gained a foothold in the northern port city of Sirte, and rival armed governments vie for power from Tripoli and Benghazi.
Even worse, Libya's fall destabilized much of the surrounding region. Tuareg mercenaries hired by Gaddafi during the 2011 war looted the dictator's armories afterwards and returned to their native Mali, triggering a series of coups and insurgencies. These weapons also spread to other terrorist groups, including those in countries as far as Yemen, Nigeria, and the Gaza territory.
It's difficult to estimateor even to summarizethe precise destruction wreaked on the world by Clinton's term as Secretary of State. As President, she could have an even greater impact, and these past precedents are not the only evidence we have that her interventionism hasn't dampened since she left office. Indeed, her statements about the problems besetting the world today have many progressives worried.
In dealing with Syria, for example, Clinton has promised an even stronger approach than Obama's, and has blamed the rise of jihadists on the President's reluctance to arm Syrian rebels. This is despite the fact that such schemes resulted in the disaster in Libya, and when Obama finally gave in and armed Syrian rebels, the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front received many of those weapons.
In fact, although the Obama Administration has refrained from advocating for regime change, seemingly having learned the lesson from Libya, Clinton advisor Jeremy Bash told the Independent recently that "dealing with Syria would be Ms. Clinton's first key task' if elected and she would work to get President Assad out of there.'" This was just days after a coalition air strike hit a cluster of houses fleeing the besieged town of Manbij in Syria, killing at least 73 civilians, including 35 children.
On the subject of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, which would mark its fiftieth anniversary less than six months after the President takes office in 2017, Hillary has also disappointed. She has unequivocally condemned the nonviolent Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement. At the same time, when discussing Israel's 2014 invasion of Gaza, she has repeatedly argued that Israel had the right to defend itself from Hamas' rocket attacks, refusing to call out Israel's disproportionate force. In a speech to AIPAC in March, she said that the United States and Israel must "take our alliance to the next level."
At the same time, Clinton remains silent as Israeli soldiers shoot unarmed Palestinian terrorists, or even family members of terror suspects. Her unequivocal support of Israel's 2014 war implies such support for the killing of almost 1,500 civilians in that war. And, killings aside, there are still the routine abuses of basic human rightsthe freedom of movement, habeus corpus and access to water, to name a few.
Lastly, Clinton has wholeheartedly endorsed one of the Obama administration's deadliest policies: drone warfare. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone strikes may have killed more than 1,000 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. In her memoir Hard Choices, Hillary described drones as "one of the most effective and controversial elements of the Obama Administration's strategy." Were she to expand drone strikes to other countries embroiled in the War on Terror, or even keep them going at their current rate, those casualty numbers could balloon even further.
In both her past actions and her promises for the future, Clinton has displayed a brash brand of American interventionism characterized by a shocking disregard for civilian casualties. A vote for Clinton is a vote for hawkish policies supported by neoconservatives that prioritize America's military supremacy over foreign lives.
Voting for Hillary is exercising the privilege denied to a Syrian civilian who might lose their life to coalition airstrikes intensified after her election.
Voting for Hillary is exercising the privilege denied to a Palestinian civilian who might lose their life to oppressive Israeli policies that she supports.
Voting for Hillary is exercising the privilege denied to a civilian anywhere in the Global South who might lose their life to an unaccountable drone program that could well be expanded if she is elected.
None of this is to say that Trump would by any means be a better President. He would certainly be far worse for marginalized groups in the United States., and would likely be disastrous for civilians abroad as well. The point is that, no matter what, there are hundreds of thousands of people who would be directly and materially harmed by Clinton's militaristic foreign policy, and they literally cannot vote.
Americans have the privilege of voting for Clinton knowing that we won't be killed by Predator drones or air strikes gone wrong. We have the privilege of viewing her as a progressive because we like some of her domestic policies, while casting from our minds the thousands of civilians around the globe that would inevitably be killed by a President Clinton.
Were I to vote for a third-party candidate, that would certainly represent an act of privilege because Trump's domestic policies would harm me far less than they would women or people of color. But in a similar vein, voting for Hillary Clinton would be an immense privilege, because I know I'm not at risk of being killed by a bomb or drone strike in Western Massachusetts, unlike innocent civilians across the globe.
As activists and as progressives, we are well within our right to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop the threat to the world and to American democracy that Trump represents. But we cannot delude ourselves into whitewashing or sugarcoating Clinton's interventionist tendencies, and we must understand that our work does not stop at the ballot box.
In April 2008, the great socialist historian Howard Zinn wrote an article for The Progressive entitled "Election Madness," in which he argued that any election must be followed by direct action and holding our elected leaders accountable to their constituents. "Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutesthe amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
"But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."
If Clinton makes it to the White House, then our work has just begunwe must organize a robust opposition to her foreign policy, lest we abuse the privilege we exercised in placing her there
Paul Rigby Wrote:the serial carnage she has championed across the globe.
And she's not even the worst the US of A has to offer in this regard.
You think the American National Security State isn't capable of infinitely more carnage?
Hate to tell ya...
It a simply appalling choice between the two and yet people still get partisan about it. Astonishing really. For me it all seems so tribal that I want to weep.
However, we all know exactly what Hilary will bring if she wins the vote. We already see the team she is building and those, like Michael Morrell, making a play for it. She and they are the war party. So all those who vote and support her will be voting for 8 more years of what Obama brought the world (and the world doesn't want it anymore). Eight years of death and destruction with a possibility of triggering a world war when they go after Russia who, after the Duma vote, will be in no mind to peddle backwards anymore. Eight years of voting for the annual award of vast riches (your riches) to the defence industry (to waste) on perpetual warfare, where immense suffering and blood is shed in exchange for fat cigars, sparkling millionaire mansions and gross greed.
Or does one imagine that these things won't happen? That Hilary will change her spots and start cooing over babies and cuddling kittens? That she'll begin building hospitals and schools and punishing Wall Street for their corruption and greed?
But Trump also has very little to commend him; he's obnoxious, crooked, a misogynist etc. He also is not a Washington insider and will do things differently and is therefore viewed as a real risk.
A risk as opposed to what?
A certainty for war, destruction and vast inhuman cruelty -- the saving grace of which is that it will be exported thousands of miles away overseas.
And everyone, therefore, can sort of pretend it's not really real and they had no part in it anyway.
If Hilary wins... shame on America.
David Guyatt: a simply appalling choice between the two and yet people still get partisan about it.
It's not a traditional choice between a corporate Democrat and a corporate Republican.
Trump is promising a new form of government blatantly racist.
Astonishing really. For me it all seems so tribal that I want to weep.
Do we want to live under a fascist strongman, or not. Trump makes no bones about the role he envisions.
Why would you wish a brutal white supremacist on anyone?
I'm baffled.
However, we all know exactly what Hilary will bring if she wins the vote.
You prefer a bunch of religious nuts who crave "the end of days?"
You think the globalists are the worst?
No, the Christian Right Trump depends on is infinitely worse.
Sorry, but you have no clue how much worse Trump would be.
Paul Rigby Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/hillary...-parkinson
Oh come on...
Putin's bitch got punked.
Hard.
Still pushing that failed neo-McCarthyite nonsense, I see.
Er, good.
Isn't the accusation of neo-McCarthyism itself a political smear job?
Trump has to release his tax returns to answer the questions about his business ties to Russia -- his son bragged about extensive Russian business ties in 2008. Trump went on Russian television to denounce the American President.
Can you imagine a Democratic candidate going on Russian TV to denounce a sitting Republican President?
The corporate media would lose its collective mind in outrage.
Donald Trump has well earned his stripes as Putin's bitch.
Cliff Varnell Wrote:David Guyatt: a simply appalling choice between the two and yet people still get partisan about it.
It's not a traditional choice between a corporate Democrat and a corporate Republican.
Trump is promising a new form of government blatantly racist.
Astonishing really. For me it all seems so tribal that I want to weep.
Do we want to live under a fascist strongman, or not. Trump makes no bones about the role he envisions.
Why would you wish a brutal white supremacist on anyone?
I'm baffled.
However, we all know exactly what Hilary will bring if she wins the vote.
You prefer a bunch of religious nuts who crave "the end of days?"
You think the globalists are the worst?
No, the Christian Right Trump depends on is infinitely worse.
Sorry, but you have no clue how much worse Trump would be.
America has been horribly racist all my life. It still is. But it's good that you wish to change this deeply ingrained inferiority complex from the American psyche. I'm with you on that.
But in pursuing that laudable aim your blithely ignoring something far, far worse.
The simple fact is that projecting wars overseas against Muslims, Russians, Chinese - and whoever else may happen to take the fucked up fancy of the utterly fucked up military intelligence & industrial complex of the US - remains the most blatant form of racism known to mankind.
And as we know, it's practised solely for financial gain and to keep the money monopoly going in order to keep the greedy bastard 1% in the comfort they've grown accustomed to.
What I take from your argument then, is that it's okay to export war-racism overseas so long as it keeps racism at bay at home. I can see how this form of myopia is acceptable. It's doubling down haard on the "I'm alright Jack" attitude.
All it requires to succeed is the ol' magic mind trick of wilfully ignoring the fact that thousands of miles away from US domestic concerns, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of non-people will pay the price in blood and suffering.
And all because America prefers to psychologically project its shadow and growing schizophrenia far away from itself, thus avoiding responsibility for the chaos it rains down.
It's those nassy ol' Muslims, Russians and Chinese to blame. Not you. Not Washington. Not America. Never America.
Have a nice day.
***
First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the Russians, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Russian.
Then they came for the Chinese, and I did not speak out
Because I was not Chinese.
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.
***
It seems evident now that what people are saying: democrats have become the war party - really is true.
Who would've thunk...
David Guyatt Wrote:America has been horribly racist all my life. It still is. But it's good that you wish to change this deeply ingrained inferiority complex from the American psyche. I'm with you on that.
But in pursuing that laudable aim your blithely ignoring something far, far worse.
The simple fact is that projecting wars overseas against Muslims, Russians, Chinese - and whoever else may happen to take the fucked up fancy of the utterly fucked up military intelligence & industrial complex of the US - remains the most blatant form of racism known to mankind.
And as we know, it's practised solely for financial gain and to keep the money monopoly going in order to keep the greedy bastard 1% in the comfort they've grown accustomed to.
What I take from your argument then, is that it's okay to export war-racism overseas so long as it keeps racism at bay at home. I can see how this form of myopia is acceptable. It's doubling down haard on the "I'm alright Jack" attitude.
All it requires to succeed is the ol' magic mind trick of wilfully ignoring the fact that thousands of miles away from US domestic concerns, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of non-people will pay the price in blood and suffering.
And all because America prefers to psychologically project its shadow and growing schizophrenia far away from itself, thus avoiding responsibility for the chaos it rains down.
It's those nassy ol' Muslims, Russians and Chinese to blame. Not you. Not Washington. Not America. Never America.
Have a nice day.
***
First they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the Russians, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Russian.
Then they came for the Chinese, and I did not speak out
Because I was not Chinese.
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak for me.
***
It seems evident now that what people are saying: democrats have become the war party - really is true.
Who would've thunk...
Beautifully put, that man. It reminded me of this:
[video=youtube_share;PH96tuRA3L0]http://youtu.be/PH96tuRA3L0[/video]
Transcript:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/l...ure-e.html