Sonic Youth Gossip - Is Trump really a serious contender for the Republican nomination?

Sonic Youth Gossip (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/index.php)

- Non-Sonics (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Is Trump really a serious contender for the Republican nomination? (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=113183)

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

@SEVERIAN et. a.

just finished reading this so i thought i'd share it before i fuck off

THE HILLARY HATERS

Few figures in American political life have inspired such deep and decades-long contempt. But why?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._the_most.html

eta: bonus:

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/08/wh...lary-meet-your

Thanks. "Apple-cheeked certitude" hah. Ugh. Interesting piece. About ¾ through it.

Also, I did indeed miss your Vince foster post (I've missed a few, this has been a super active thread lately), but I went back. This must be the origin I'm looking for, of the vague conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated rumours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

The single biggest gripe I have with President Obama is his refusal to seriously investigate, much lest prosecute, the manifest and manifold crimes of the Bush administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

the Syrian war has been since 2011, Syrian military has been supposedly fighting Isis since then, Russia provided military support before getting directly involved more recently. the point remains, if the war in Syria is supposedly about Isis, how come Syrian govt hasn't stopped Isis? more importantly, why does Syrian government expend so much military effort against non-Isis political targets?

see you insinuating America allowed Isis, that might very well be true, but that exact same logic suggests we need to have the same level of skepticism and scrutiny against Syrian government itself and its Russian ally

the war is bigger than Aleppo

Yup yup. If anyone has seen House of Cards season 4, it's a pretty damn good "fictional" representation of both Putin and the countless ways politicians have manipulated ISIS and used their existence to justify new atrocities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

I gave you positive rep for the bulk of your post, but I must disagree with this portion. The single biggest gripe I have with President Obama is his refusal to seriously investigate, much lest prosecute, the manifest and manifold crimes of the Bush administration. Holding this in mind, Trump's promise to appoint a special prosecutor to INVESTIGATE, and, then, if necessary, prosecute Clinton for her own official misdeeds during her tenure in Federal office is hardly out of order. The such would not be the act of a dictator, but simply the Constitutional system working as originally intended. Further, I interpret Trump's remarks concerning the Second Amendment to the US Constitution not as an incitement to inflict harm upon Mrs. Clinton, nor to engage in any other act of terrorism, but to maintain an armed populace as the reservoir of the bulk of the nation's military potential. In other words, as has often been said, "The purpose of the Second Amendment is to remind the government of the First Amendment.".

Furthermore, Hillary's attribution of the birther argument against President Obama to racism flies in the face of my own analysis of Ted Cruz's lack of Constitutional qualification for the Presidency on the basis of his known biography, as it also applies to (born in Mexico to US citizen parents) George Romney's presidential campaign in 1968, and probably to (Panama Canal Zone-born (in off-base housing (the on-base hospital in which he claims to have been born not then existing!))) John McCain's candidacy in 2008. I agree that Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona Territory, was qualified to be President in 1964, yet stricter birthers than I would disagree.

Finally, I interpret the Democrats' knee-jerk reaction to the email hack by blaming the Russians , and then threatening them with cyber "counter-attack", to be a ploy to divert attention from the contents of the revelations themselves.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with greenlight concerning the current US-Russia confrontation.

I agree that Obama should have pursued investigation and, if the evidence was there--I have no doubt it would be--pursued prosecution of Dubya's henchmen. But Trump hasn't issued a reasonable request for an investigation of Clinton--he has promised his fascist base that he would put her in jail. And there's a big difference with Obama: he didn't run against a lame duck Bush, who had already served two terms. Thus, he wouldn't have been pursuing a banana republic-like persecution of someone who committed the heinous crime of running against him, unlike Drumpf. And I've already made my case earlier in this thread for Drumpf's hate speech being an incitement to violence, not a call for gun fanatics to go to the polls.

I agree with HRC that the birther bullshit about Obama was based in racism.
The difference with the other examples you cited (Cruz, McCain, George Romney, etc.) is that there is no doubt as to where they were born; the only question was whether they were constitutionally barred from serving as president. With Obama, saying he wasn't born in Hawaii was total bullshit. Even fascist commentator Pat Buchanan said that a local Hawaiian newspaper's listing of Obama's birth under local births put to rest any doubt he was born in the US.

Finally, foreign interference in US elections is a very valid concern. I don't give a shit whether hacked emails are Clinton's or Trump's. Cyber counterattacks are very much in order.

Bill Maher on Fareed Zakaria GPS today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XZzUrhBHA

the difference is whether anyone agrees with the decision or not Overlord Hillary WAS formally investigated and right or wrong won her case. Trump could have his special investigation, likely she would win that one too..

why isn't Trump talking about special investigations for police brutality?

and Robert i respectfully disagree about the 2nd Amendment. While i am also in minority of those who don't think Trump was insinuating threats of violence, i neither think he thinks 2nd Amendment is about protecting people from government.

firstly that was NOT the intent of the Framers of Constitution, in 18th century the US relied heavily on a self armed military, on people bringing thwir own arms to their military service. it wasn't until the Civil War thst US finally developed something like a professional military, and it was so disconcerting that the military complex was disassembled until WWI..

secondly haha do any gun owners actually believe they could stand up to the US military? i mean honestly, that is suicide right? the military or government is NOT in ANY SINGLE way intimidated or threatened by an armed population, indeed it works to tjeir advantage with how much so many people actually seem to openly support police brutality the government would have a license to kill any armed insurrections with absolute impunity. go ahead gun nitzw, start your revolution, it would be effective population control to weed out the total dumbasses

More dead in Aleppo.
Wait... even more now (as of this morning).

Moscow vetoed the UN Security Council resolution to halt strikes to allow medical personnel access to the region.

My question: why are the US and UK not making economic sanctions an absolute top priority?

that is actually a fantastic question

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

its frankly pathetic, how much on ALL SIDES conspiracy theories are seemingly legitimized by the effect of the Internet. I mean, 15 years ago who could have imagined that David Icke would essentially control the national narrative?

The Bernie crowd and leftists tend to argue that the Overlord Hillary rigged the DNC! I mean you can't make this stuff if you tried

Quote:

Originally Posted by Severian

another Bush and Blair, nothing's changed. do these two muppets really believe that anyone believes one single word that comes out their mouths?

the look on Boris' face is one of he is trying his best to remember his own first name.

“we are outraged by what is happening in Aleppo, which is in year
2016, beginning of the 21st century, horrendous step back in time to a
kind of barbarianism, a use of force that is an insult to all of the
values that the United Nations and most countries believe should guide
our actions,” John Kerry told journalists - John Kerry, you are a low-life, filthy, vile hypocrite.

dear Boris.
imagine if an Al Qaeda force managed to take half of London territory, causing 3/4 of the people in that part of London to flee to the side still protected by the government. now imagine also that those who were left behind were subjected to Sharia law and not allowed to leave.
after 4 years the government having gained the assistance of a larger power is now in a position to liberate the people from Al Qaeda and allow them to rejoin with relatives in Western London, which now holds 80-90% of the city's population.
each day Londoners are dying from the shelling coming from within East London, and every time there is a ceasefire , Al Qaeda resupplied by Westerners.
as a former mayor of London, do you:
a) impose a no fly zone over London, allowing Al Qaeda to invade West London?
b) create an immediate ceasefire for English forces but allow Al Qaeda to continue shelling and to invade West London.
c) bomb the centre of East London, killing the relatives of people in West London, creating huge demonstrations in the streets?
d) attack from many flanks specifically targetting the PERIMETER of East London, and call for fighters to lay down arms and be transferred to Scotland ?
be aware that if you choose "D" you will be labelled a barbarian and accused of war crimes.

and Saudi Arabia in charge of human rights????????!!!!!!!!!!

does anyone buy this bull anymore? its getting ridiculous.
I give up. peace!

edit
Dr Marcus Papadopoulos talks to BBC News about Syria the MUST.. (4min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv8ACO0X1r8

greenlight, you keep missing a fundamental point here. If the UK government was bombing and shelling civilian populations in London, even if in the midst of a rebellion with armed militias, it would STILL BE A HUUUUUUGE PROBLEM. The problem in Syria is not the government fighting against ISIS or militias, its the excessive and disproportionate use of military force against non-violent civilian populations, period. Also last time i checked, this is an internationally recognized war crime.

Also you did realize it was the Syrian government violating all the imaginary cease-fires yes? Not the militias

i find the growing sympathy for Putin to be the hilarious frankly. folks did realize that supporting a corrupt oligarch dictatorship like Putin's Russia supposedly in reaction to American political corruption is the definition of stupid yes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dead_battery

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...rnormalisation

oh shit, only plays in the UK. i have the opera vpn on the ipad but it doesn't have a UK exit-- i tried coming out of germany but nope-- germany pays no tv tax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

OF COURSE

but growing where??

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

OF COURSE

but growing where??

all over the internet.. the rise of Russoialtry is depressing

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

all over the internet.. the rise of Russoialtry is depressing

lol the interwebs

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

That makes it even worse, although Hillary didn't "win", per se--based on the FBI's recommendation, the Attorney General declined to prosecute. But Trump would make sure some stooge willing to do his bidding without asking questions was appointed--the prosecutorial equivalent of Chris Christie. That stooge would make sure an indictment was returned, whether he/she thought a conviction could be had or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Another board I post on might as well be the Putin Fan Club--a lot of misguided people who think that anyone who criticizes US foreign policy is automatically a good guy. That makes no fucking sense. Bullshit aggression is bullshit aggression, no matter what government is committing it. But to hear Vlad's apologists tell it, he's like a secular Dali Lama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drjohnrock

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Drjohnrock again.

The broken clock is finally right.

Donald Trump Proposes New Lobbying Restrictions

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-pr...57359?mod=e2tw

I'm totally behind this, actually. The sentiment, at least.

sorta like what Obama enacted in 2009?

But his reforms were bad. Terrible. The worst.

Trump's will be fantastic. The best.

A DISASTER

trump knows how to make a deal

...

(like he made with his casino investors, his university students, his contractors, etc)

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh shit, only plays in the UK. i have the opera vpn on the ipad but it doesn't have a UK exit-- i tried coming out of germany but nope-- germany pays no tv tax.

http://www.uk-proxy.co.uk/#

make sure to deselect remove scripts and remove objects

search www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer then search for "hypernormalization".

all yall muthafuckas should really go watch that doc, all minds shall be blown

thanks. i wasn't aware of uk proxy sites. i have work and football games today but will catch this very soon-- likely thursday/friday. ADAM CURTIS IS GREAT.

Allegedly there is video of Bill with some young women at Jeffrey Epstein's child rape mansion that was going to be released this week.

Bill is documented as flying in Epstein's jet 25 times and ditching his Secret Service detail at least 5.

Trump can't do much with this, though, because he is also pals with Epstein.

Isn't it interesting that the "sex tape" - as CBS radio calls the Access Hollywood outtake - was made available now, and not during the primaries when there was still time to choose. By Billy Bush who is nephew to ex CIA Director/President George HW Bush, and cousin to former President George Bush Jr who once called Bill Clinton 'my brother from another mother'. Textbook campaign dirty trick. Pure black sex magic used against the masses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tesla69

Pure black sex magic used against the masses.

sure sure, black magic. and orcs and elves.

like trump's "fortune" doesn't come from the darkest of arts

stupid fucker couldn't even profit from gambling, had to fleece investors and contractors instead.

fucken reality tv carnival barker

using deception to fool the masses

Quote:

Originally Posted by tesla69

Allegedly

allegedly, mice made it to the moon millions of years ago, and ate all the cheese

which evidently is why now there is no cheese on the moon, in spite of what wallace and gromit will have you believe

Quote:

Originally Posted by tesla69

Isn't it interesting that the "sex tape" - as CBS radio calls the Access Hollywood outtake - was made available now, and not during the primaries when there was still time to choose.

oh, I'm sure there was stuff on all the rest of the Republican candidates. And I think it was a GREAT time to release it. :)

haha there was nothing murky about Obama's birth, it didn't take years for him to "ultimately prove his claim" its that he waited to release the information because frankly it was beneath the office of the president to respond to internet and media trollz. no legitimate person even remotely believed or.bought into the Birther conspiracy in any way, the whole thing was hilarious frankly and we all were laughing.

as with Russia hacking, its indeed convenient but that doesn't mean it can't also be true. what we're seeing is govt and media spin away this weird rehab Putin's image has had in the past year. Somehow Putin of all people is becoming some kind of bastion of conservative American values of democracy and freedom. and if any Republicans lived in Russian and were half as.critical of Putin as they have been of their own president, well they might find out Putin isn't always that interested in democracy or freedom

From The Village Voice:

Quote:

Confessions of a Hillary Supporter: 'It's Not Like We Can Breathe Easy'
By Robert Christgau
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:40 p.m.

Let me start by saying something crucial that may surprise you. I LIKE Hillary Clinton. At her Manhattan headquarters there's a wall where her worker bees leave multicolored love notes. Written in my native lead pencil, my contribution is quieter: "I love HRC because she's so awkward, because she's so well-meaning, and because she works harder than Obama himself." But you don't have to share my fuzzy feelings to accept my thesis: Anyone who identifies "progressive" and doesn't vote for Hillary will have succumbed to a cynicism that masquerades as hope for a better tomorrow. I see two main reasons for this: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But I promise to get to Bernie Sanders too.

Trump first. Trump isn't merely a highly unattractive candidate. He's the worst major-party candidate in history — by miles. I don't mean just morally: a pathologically narcissistic liar and admitted sexual abuser unable to control his sick contempt for women and people of color. I mean he's manifestly incompetent — psychologically and intellectually well short of James Buchanan fostering secession or Warren Harding and his Teapot Dome or George W. Bush transferring billions to the .01 percent while stoking permanent jihad. And even in the wake of last week's sexual and financial revelations, the evidence suggests he can still win. A month is a long time in a presidential campaign. Trump's surprising ability to pull himself together and pretend he's a functioning political actor in the second debate should frighten us all.

I know, you can't stand him either. For you, Hillary is the hard part. So as someone who voted Clinton in the primary, let me begin by saying I don't know a single Hillary supporter who thought she'd be a great candidate, on the issues or on the stump. Moreover, while I was glad Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden declined the failed bloodbaths their prospective challenges would have turned into, I was also glad when Sanders took her on, and though I like him less now than when he was a distant gadfly, I agree that he improved her game, plenty on the issues and somewhat on the stump.

Hillary lacks daring as well as grace, and from Libya to Honduras, her instinct in foreign policy has always been to fetishize "democracy" in an obtusely formalistic way. But she has a long personal history of doing good for people, an unmatched grasp of policy, thousands of exploitable relationships, and a platform where Sanders taught her plenty about the expanding limits of what's progressive and what's politic. Never underestimate the Repugs. But about women and children she could be a historically great president. Far from Wall Street's pawn, she's generated a smart, doable regulatory agenda. And do I even have to mention the Supreme Court?

As for her legendary dishonesty, please note: PolitiFact has calculated that she's more truthful than any pol except Obama himself — just ahead of Jeb Bush and Bernie Sanders, comically enough. So I hope readers who don't "trust" Hillary, just like millions of other Americans whose vote she deserves, reflect again on why, and admit two possibilities they think they're too good for.

1) What she long ago dubbed "a vast right-wing conspiracy," which is now far vaster, has slimed her without surcease since 1993, when she oversaw the universal healthcare initiative Congress quashed. No voter can be altogether unaffected by such a drumbeat — especially when it has its putatively liberal-"objective" counterpart in a New York Times that with its historical ties to the patrician-liberal South has always smelled in Bill Clinton a scheming bubba out to con decent folk.

2) Hillary is no bubbette. She's a Wellesley girl from Illinois. But she married a bubba, and thus is tainted. It's frightening but true that sexism represents even more of a threat to her candidacy than racism did to the African-American one we know so well. Sexism is woven so deeply into our biographies that progressives have trouble copping to it, and not just in its Hill-equals-Bill form. I mean that creepy feeling that HRC is simultaneously a schoolmarm and a wicked deceiver, combining a bossy voice with lyin' eyes — plus the mom who made you eat your broccoli where Bernie is the grandpa who bought you ice cream.

So right, Bernie. On the issues he was Hillary's superior, on implementation anything but. Admirably untouched by big money, he was undeterred by a single attack ad or exposé of his wild socialist youth because he was the opponent the right wanted. So he was dizzied by the unsullied adulation he inspired just like every other new star in history. Of course he reveled in his newfound fame after sixty years of failing to lead humanity into righteousness. But when his wife, Jane, reported indignantly that he'd called the Daily News's sane follow-up questions on breaking up the banks "an inquisition," I lost what little faith I had that he was ready to govern.

Yet not only did he beef up the platform more than seemed possible, he now agrees with me on Hillary and is doing something about it on campuses nationwide. Pullquote: "I know about as much about third-party politics as anybody in Congress. And I want anybody who's thinking about voting against Hillary Clinton, and casting a protest vote because she is not all they would like her to be, to understand what the consequences for the country and the world will be."

Sanders isn't worried his legions will vote Trump. He's worried they'll support Brexit-cheering, vaccination-neutral MD Jill Stein, the Green nominee, or internationally clueless deficit wacko Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, rather than giving up their dreams by voting for how much worse things won't get. I worry too. So let me back it up a little.

[continues...]

...

Quote:

In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader because I hated Joe Lieberman. As few younger readers will recall, consumer crusader Nader was the Green candidate, while Lieberman was Al Gore's veep pick, a pompous family-values right-Zionist who would support his asshole buddy John McCain against Obama in 2008. It's a lesson in realpolitik that instead of cold-shouldering this warmongering prig, the newly elected president courted Lieberman, who ended up providing essential support in the struggles for Obamacare and against "don't ask, don't tell." In 2000, however, I was too good to cut the popinjay any slack. I never bought the "Gush-and-Bore" fatuity that the two candidates were indistinguishable, but a Gore who lost New York would lose everywhere — if my state of residence had been remotely in play I would have voted Democrat. Since it wasn't, I voted third-party — not for the first time, but definitely for the last.

Also in 2000, Nader had a more influential supporter very close at hand. Under the headline "A Green Light for Nader," my then-employer, the Village Voice, endorsed his candidacy and plastered his face on the cover — in part to move issues, but also because many Voicers considered the Clinton-Gore record "dubious" and dreamed the Greens would gain federal funding by snagging 5 percent of the vote. I wasn't involved in this decision, but I approved of it. Only then I found myself disquieted by the logic of an unbylined dissent published in the same pre–Election Day issue, which reminded us that Nader had dismissed gay and abortion rights as "gonadal politics" before it delivered a takeaway to remember: "As wise as the candidate is about life in a conglomerate state, he can't tell the difference between a party compromised by the culture and a party that embraces it."

So then Bush won by dint of his 537-vote margin over Gore in Florida, where Nader received 97,488 votes. Without wasting column inches on the many specious arguments that now surround this tragedy, I'll note three facts, two of which concern only my feelings. 1) Although I liked Nader's class politics, I disliked the man, a puritanical prune I thought would make a lousy president. My vote was strictly ideological except insofar as I disliked Lieberman even more. 2) Since it was quite conceivable that the Voice endorsement (and cover!) was good for 538 or more Nader votes in Florida, I felt guilty about my complicity and still do. 3) In 2004 I shoehorned into the April 27 Voice Harry G. Levine's Googlable "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber," which provided all the proof I'll ever need that it was Nader's conscious, egomaniacal goal to "punish" the Democrats by torpedoing Gore's run, most shamefully by campaigning heavily in Florida after promising not to.

Whatever political twist you want to put on it, the brute arithmetic seems to me incontrovertible. If Nader doesn't target Florida, Gore gains at least the half-percent of Greens he needs to win. Instead, Bush wins, and as is only slightly less incontrovertible, embarks upon our nation's most disastrous presidency: Iraq, Great Recession, Cheney and Rumsfeld, Roberts and Alito. I felt implicated even before 9-11 — the first and most damaging of the Bush tax cuts that would eventually total $1.3 trillion became law in June. But the clincher was the mendacious, cruel, and horrendously conceived and executed Iraq invasion, which turned the Middle East into the hellhole of bin Laden's dreams just as the hundreds of thousands of us who marched against it thought it would. Dubya had to be beaten in 2004 — and I had to help.

Thus it came to pass that in 2004 I became one of the many corny Americans who volunteer for the Democratic Party. In presidential years, New Yorkers like me focus on swing states, by telephone and if we can door-to-door; in off-years I've phonebanked close congressional races all over the Northeast. My biggest commitment was one of my earliest, when a Devo devotee my wife and I knew wound up managing John Kerry's Akron office — we spent a week there and got a friend, a nephew, and our daughter to join us. In 2008, I spent two long weekends canvassing Northern Virginia, and in 2012 bussed down to Philly and Bethlehem with my union.

I'm a confident person, but I don't find this work easy. Sure, the commonest task is simply to make sure preselected sympathizers, most of them registered Democrats, are on our side, and then that they vote. But false hits are numerous because our lists are always dated — revising them is a key goal. Anyway, nobody likes getting unsolicited phone calls, or having a stranger knock on the door and ask questions — no wonder every form has a "Refused" box, and that a few refusers are actively hostile. On the phone or the street, the high percentage of no-answers and not-homes can get depressing. And it takes me a while to hit my groove when I do make contact — check for down-ballot support, ask enthusiasts to sign a pledge card, be sure people know their polling place.

But if this grunt work is tedious, it can also be exhilarating. Most exchanges are pro forma, but every fourth or fifth contact will require a conversation in which I impart something, learn something, or both. In Akron I remember the military man who requested email documentation debunking the anti-Kerry Swift Boat slander, the black family whose second-story abode could only be reached by ladder, the left-wing barber whose refrigerator magnet now affixes an Obama pic to my front door. In Alexandria I was moved to tell an uncommitted young white woman, "No matter what you decide, Obama's smarter" and hear her reply, "I know." In Bethlehem my wife touched a hard-up woman with a sick kid by describing our own child's healthcare saga. In Allentown a few weeks ago, I watched the phenomenally together daughter of a phenomenally friendly Spanish-speaking mom register them both a month after they'd moved down from Long Island. And whenever I sensed an opening, I told people that Hillary had been under partisan attack for decades and that almost all of it was lies.

On the last long blocks of my Allentown route, a succession of not-homes on a gorgeous Saturday afternoon was bookended by a sweet, serious registered black nineteen-year-old male and a stoner-looking unregistered white eighteen-year-old male who both reported that they weren't voting. I think the black kid heard me when I pointed out that he was so young he felt as if the scandal-free calm of an administration the opposition never stopped vilifying was normal when in fact there'd never been a president as no-drama as Obama and never would be again. And the white kid had the grace to let me spiel after muttering that his one vote couldn't possibly change anything. I told him that by the brute arithmetic he was right — practically speaking, a single vote is never decisive. Then I told him what I've believed since long before 2000: that voting is devotional, an act of faith in a highly imperfect system that is nonetheless the best form of government anyone has put into practice, and that I hoped someday he'd accept that. Stupidly, I lacked the presence of mind to leave a registration form.

This is electoral democracy's most embarrassing secret, and it explains a lot. One reason young citizens are so unimpressed with the franchise after spending years nurturing individual uniquenesses they're still working on is that it's a vivid reminder of how infinitesimal each of us is — less than one 300-millionth of the citizenry. Bernie Sanders conjured a collectivity that could assuage such insignificance, and although his fans should ask themselves why Trump's very different collectivity is so much bigger, you can see how converts who believe they spearheaded a political revolution could be disheartened by talk of "incremental" change, a word you'll note has faded from HRC's rhetoric.

So not only do I join Bernie in urging his fans to vote for Hillary, I urge them to understand that third parties have been distractions in this country since the Whigs cleared the way for Lincoln. I pray they pursue what we damn well hope is a political revolution not just by protesting when HRC does something untoward, as she will — a misbegotten Syrian military incursion seems all too possible — but by undertaking work slower and grimmer than stuffing a caucus: infusing a Democratic Party desperately in need of strengthened infrastructure and young blood.

If you're with me, on the other hand, just visit hillaryclinton.com/events, or drop in at 52 Broadway with your cellphone and find something to do. The harder you work, the less strictly devotional your participation is likely to be. And though things have been looking up ever since the first debate, it's not like we can breathe easy. The latest WikiLeaks attack, a debate stumble, a health scare, a terrorist event, Deutsche Bank going south, polling errors, turnout shortfalls with hurricane-damaged Florida leading the way, an Election Day certain to be an appalling mess, the sheer unpredictability of the process in this most anomalous of election years — any combination of these could make things way too close. Anyway, we don't just want to win — we want to win so big across the board that Clinton will feel obliged to activate her platform and that Trump's racist, xenophobic chauvinism will seem a perilous tack even to the saner Republicans who are right now scheming to deliver the U.S. to Big Capital in 2020. These are the historical realities all Americans now face. Own them or else.

if democrats are going to rehash their false narrative blaming Nader for Bush II well they are playing with fire. That Al Gore couldn't get about 600 vptes in Florida says a lot more about Al Gore than it says anything about Nader

Is anyone waiting for Trump to make some statement tonight which is so outrageously offensive and/or stupid that it finally tanks his campaign?

I suddenly realized this isn't going to happen. Man, I'm fucking slow sometimes.

Tomorrow, me, you and competent editorial writers may all agree statement X showed a dangerous lack of blahblahblah. Doesn't matter even the tiniest little bit.

as with the Draymond Green suspension, the problem with Trump os cumulative, its not one particular thing he says, said, or could say, its everything combined over not just paat year, but really since 2012

everyone should watch the hypernormalization doc i posted by adam curtis on the bbc iplayer

some seriously weird shit

apparently putins right hand man came from the avant garde russian theatre world and adopted a strategy of backing all major groups in russia he could, including opposition parties, and then announced this is what he was doing, all as part of some scheme to confuse people and thus gain power.

also this doc reveals the scam we pulled in libya in a way that i have never heard before