Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates

Exclusive: Neither the Democrats nor President Trump learned the right lessons from the 2016 election, leaving the nation divided at home and bogged down in wars abroad, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

One year ago, the American electorate delivered a confused but shocking result, the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, a quirky outcome in the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House even though Clinton got three million more votes nationally. But neither party appears to have absorbed the right lessons from that surprise ending.

President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from

The Democrats might have taken away from their defeat the warning that they had forgotten how to speak to the white working class, which had suffered from job losses via “free trade” and felt willfully neglected as Democrats looked toward the “browning of America.”

The choice of Clinton had compounded this problem because she came across as elitist and uncaring toward this still important voting bloc with her memorable description of half of Trump’s voters as “deplorables,” an insult that stung many lower-income whites and helped deliver Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump.

For more than a decade, some Democratic strategists had promoted the notion that “demography is destiny,” i.e., that the relative growth of Latino, Asian and African-American populations in comparison to whites would ensure a future Democratic majority. That prediction seemed to have been validated by Barack Obama’s winning coalition in 2008 and 2012, but it also had the predictable effect of alienating many whites who felt disrespected and resentful.

So, while the Democrats and Clinton looked to a multicultural future, Trump used his experience in reality TV to communicate with this overlooked demographic group. Trump sold himself as a populist and treated the white working class with respect. He spoke to their fears about economic decline and gave voice to their grievances. He vowed to put “America First” and pull back from foreign military adventures that often used working-class kids as cannon fodder.

But much of Trump’s message, like the real-estate mogul himself, was phony. He really didn’t have policies that would address the needs of working-class Americans. Still, his promises of a massive infrastructure plan, good health-care for all, and rejection of unfair trade deals rang the right bells with enough voters to flip some traditionally Democratic blue-collar states to Republican red.

Staying Blind

You might have thought that the Democrats would respond to Trump’s shocking victory, which also left Republicans in charge of Congress and most statehouses around the country, by launching an apologetic listening tour to reconnect with working-class whites.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

There also might have been a clear-eyed evaluation of the weaknesses of the Democratic presidential nominee who came to personify the corrupt insider-culture of Official Washington, exploiting government service for financial gain by raking in millions of dollars for speeches to Wall Street and other special interests.

Clinton also offended many peace voters because of her support for aggressive war, both as a U.S. senator backing the disastrous invasion of Iraq and as Secretary of State pushing for U.S. military interventions in Libya and Syria. Her apology for voting for the Iraq War came across as opportunistic and insincere, and her undisguised delight over Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly murder (“We came; we saw; he died!”) seemed ghoulish.

And, whether fairly or not, many Americans were turned off by the Democratic Party’s emphasis on “identity politics,” the assumption that people would vote based on their gender, race or sexual orientation, rather than on bread-and-butter policies and war-or-peace issues.

In other words, the Democratic Party could have looked in the mirror and seen what many Americans found unappealing about the modern version of a party that had done so much to build the country, from the New Deal during the Great Depression through the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and taking a leading role in addressing environmental, health-care and other national challenges.

But today’s Democrats instead chose to blame their plight largely on Russia and its alleged “meddling” in U.S. politics, a strategy that not only made little sense – given the many other reasons why voters turned away from Clinton and her party – but delivered a message to white working-class voters who had gone over to Trump that they were “stupid” and had been “duped.”

Whatever one thinks about white working-class voters who favored Trump, calling people gullible is not an effective way to woo back a voting bloc that already feels insulted and alienated.

Missing a Chance

So, when Trump was sworn in last Jan. 20, the ball was largely in his court. He could have focused on rebuilding America’s infrastructure; or he could have proposed a serious plan for improving access to health care; or he could have moved pragmatically to resolve a host of international conflicts that President Obama had left behind.

The crowd at President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from

Instead, President Trump squandered his first days in office by getting into absurd arguments about his inaugural crowd size compared to Obama’s and denying that Clinton had won the national popular vote. His “alternative facts” made him a laughingstock.

Last spring, when I spoke with a group of Trump voters in West Virginia, they were still faithful to their choice – and wanted Washington to give him a chance – but they already were complaining about Trump’s personal outbursts on Twitter; they wanted him to concentrate on their real needs, not his petty squabbles.

But Trump wasn’t listening. He couldn’t kick his Twitter habit. He kept putting his giant ego in the way.

As his presidency stumbled forward, Trump also brushed aside suggestions that he reverse his image as a person who had no regard for facts by declassifying information about the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere – to reveal situations where Obama and his team played propaganda games, rather than tell the truth.

And, lacking sufficient knowledge about the world, Trump failed when presented with sophisticated plans for reshaping U.S. policies in the Middle East to become less dependent on Israel and Saudi Arabia. Instead, Trump jumped into the arms of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi King Salman.

Pandering to Israeli-Saudi desires – and trying to show how tough he was – Trump fired off 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria over a dubious chemical-weapons incident; threatened more Mideast strife against Iran; and escalated the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan.

Plus, he blustered about war against North Korea and personally insulted the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, as “little rocket man.” Rather than rein in neoconservative aggression, he continued to unleash it.

When Trump did address domestic policy, he defined himself as basically just another right-wing Republican, supporting a health-care scheme that would have made matters worse for millions of Americans and backing a tax-cut plan that would mostly benefit the rich while blowing an even bigger hole in the deficit. All that red ink, in turn, drowned any hopes for investments in a modern infrastructure.

In other words, Trump exposed himself as the narcissistic incompetent that his critics said he was. He proved incapable of even acting presidential, let alone showing that he could use his power to make life better for average Americans. He was left with little to boast about beyond the economy that was bequeathed to him by Obama.

Republicans also had little to brag about, explaining why Ed Gillespie, the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee in Virginia in 2017, opted for ugly socially divisive attack ads as the best hope for defeating Democrat Ralph Northam, a Gillespie strategy called “Trumpism without Trump.”

But Gillespie’s approach backfired with a surprisingly strong turnout of Virginia’s voters putting Northam into the governor’s mansion and almost erasing the solid Republican majority in the state legislature.

Trump was left to tweet about how the Virginia results, which were echoed in other states’ elections on Tuesday, weren’t a reflection on his own popularity, ignoring his unprecedentedly low approval ratings for a president nine months into his first term.

So, the new political question is whether Trump can belatedly learn from his failures and finally undertake some actions at home and abroad that actually serve the interests of the American people and the world. Or will he continue to bumble and stumble along?

A parallel question is whether the Democrats will misinterpret their strong showing on Tuesday as encouragement to continue ignoring their own political and institutional shortcomings – and to keep on using Russia to bash Trump. Neither side has shown much aptitude for learning.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

133 comments for “Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates

  1. Herman
    November 11, 2017 at 20:03

    From the article :”Whatever one thinks about white working-class voters who favored Trump, calling people gullible is not an effective way to woo back a voting bloc that already feels insulted and alienated” The first phrase seems to put Mr. Parry on the other side from the deplorables. Just a more genteel way of saying it. I think of them as the people who do the useful stuff to make our lives better;

  2. Skip Scott
    November 11, 2017 at 08:16

    Another great article by Mr. Parry, but I found this paragraph puzzling:

    “As his presidency stumbled forward, Trump also brushed aside suggestions that he reverse his image as a person who had no regard for facts by declassifying information about the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere – to reveal situations where Obama and his team played propaganda games, rather than tell the truth.”

    Outside of places like CN, I heard no suggestions that Trump declassify the information mentioned. It would be great if he did, but I think he would be crossing a “red line” with the Intelligence services who, let’s face it, are the ones in charge. I can think of no greater proof that he’s had his “trip to the woodshed”, and we will see nothing substantial from Trump on foreign or domestic policy.

  3. November 11, 2017 at 04:02

    Neither side has shown much aptitude for learning.

  4. Abe
    November 10, 2017 at 17:16

    The mandate for shady dramas such as Russia-gate clearly did not come from the American electorate.

    Writes on politics at CounterPunch, Mike Whitney maintains that the Democrat smear campaign against Trump “has less to do with Hillary’s presidential ambitions than it does with the way her campaign found common cause with powerful members of the intelligence community who wanted to use the hacking narrative to pursue their own geopolitical strategy of isolating, punishing and demonizing Russia. ‘Russian meddling’ became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA’s broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against ‘Russian aggression’ and to reign in Trump’s plans to normalize relations with Moscow.”

    According to Whitney, “Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that’s just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation’s premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that’s where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.”

    Whitney focuses on the role of John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under U.S. President Barack Obama.

    According to Whitney:

    “It’s clear that Brennan had no ‘information or intelligence’ that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump’s entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA’s intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? […]

    “But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan’s chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America.

    “So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary’s Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state.”

    In effect, Whitney’s thesis makes Trump the “fall guy”.

    A more cogent investigation of Russia-gate would more fully examine the role of pro-Israel Lobby factions backing both Trump and Clinton, Israeli efforts to influence on American elections, and Israel’s attempt to direct U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and Iran.

  5. Zachary Smith
    November 10, 2017 at 12:54

    Here is a headline from a story I read this morning:

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi says she’d support a ground invasion in North Korea as a last resort

    I agree with the woman regarding her concerns about North Korea selling both the technology and the nuclear weapons themselves. But a ground invasion? Is she talking only to bombastic neocons when she seeks advice about military issues?


  6. James
    November 10, 2017 at 07:19

    I don’t claim a relationship with GOD. I remember when Eternal Damnation was preached. There is right and wrong. Science has proven the brain lives after death and I can only hope the last conscious thoughts for politicians is what’s next?

  7. Antiwar7
    November 9, 2017 at 19:55

    You know he’s scared for his life by the secret services.His turnabouts in foreign policy show it.

  8. Pablo Diablo
    November 9, 2017 at 18:21

    Excellent summary (as always) Mr Parry. Once again, I will say, the FBI leaked Hillary’s emails (they hated Hillary and were not too fond of Comey) and an insider (disgusted with the treatment of Bernie) leaked the DNC emails. None were “hacked”. RUSSIA GATE is a smokescreen to keep us from actually reading what is in the emails. I’ve read enough to disgust me. The Dems and the Repubs don’t care who wins. Both sides take money from the same wealthy interests and are committed to the status quo. Except for more rolling back regulations on Wall Street and the environment, and privatizing education. OH! And tax breaks are coming soon.
    A massive military buildup = an Empire in decline.

  9. November 9, 2017 at 18:07

    Thank you again Bob,

    For your sober and well balanced appraisal of Repubs and Dems alike fumbling along trying to reconstruct their parties by overlooking their past mistakes, while the President is still more captivated with his Nielson ratings than with any long term strategies for solving the country’s health and employment problems. Perhaps he really could initiate a truth commission to examine just how we got involved in Ukraine (are we really seeking regime change in Moscow?) and Libya (doing favors for our NATO allies?) and reveal what the American people should know about the real “Washington Playbook” referred to by the previous administration. Hang in there and maybe we can eventually decorporatize control of our instruments of government and return them to a properly informed and educated citizenry. Oh, perhaps this is overly idealistic. Let’s just settle for a dose of common sense inside the beltway right now.

  10. michael crockett
    November 9, 2017 at 17:53

    Well done. A pox on both their houses. The Democrats, writ large the DNC, stole the election from Bernie. At the conclusion of the Democratic Primary, Bernie should have taken up the offer from the Green Party to join with them. He had 176 million dollars in campaign contributions and 13 million voters. Maybe we could have gotten the populist on the left. That being said, he could have at least left the Democratic Party and gone back to being an Independent. i agree with Ralph Nader that Bernie, post campaign, should have continued to speak to the issues at large rallies all across the country. Missed opportunities for Bernie and the American people. With respect to his organization, Our Revolution, I am out. When you take contributions from the billionaires, your talking status quo not revolution.

    • Skip Scott
      November 10, 2017 at 12:49


      You got that right! Bernie caving to the Clinton machine and expecting us to come along like he was the pied piper disgusted me to no end. I think the Greens are our only hope. I hope a lot of Bernie supporters will see the Democratic party for what it is (Elitist Warmongers just like the GOP) and come over to the Green Party for 2020. We need to break the two party system to stand a chance.

  11. November 9, 2017 at 15:31

    “Neither side has shown much aptitude for learning.”

    I suspect that this may be because, in order to have an aptitude for learning, one needs to believe that there is such a thing as objective truth – and neither Trump, not the members of the party establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties, appears to believe in such a concept.

  12. Gregory Kruse
    November 9, 2017 at 12:56

    I am one of those who was offended by Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton because of their corporatist policies and their obvious disdain for people like me. My vote for Jill Stein didn’t hurt Hillary since she won the popular vote by 3 mil, and it didn’t hurt her in the Electoral College because I live in Illinois, but my attitude toward Democrats is shared by many who find themselves left behind with a general poverty in small towns like the one I live in, is nipping at our heels. It remains to be seen if Democrats who get elected will do anything different than they have in recent years or decades. Unless they wake up and get on track, things will only get worse with them in office. I might start to believe it if and when Bernie Sanders becomes a Democratic Party celebrity.

  13. November 9, 2017 at 10:36

    And the 3 richest Americans now own more wealth than the bottom half of Americans combined, according to Forbes.

  14. November 9, 2017 at 10:32

    The Green Party in the US can’t even get on TV to debate.

  15. November 9, 2017 at 10:31

    This is the weak sentiment of most writers with regard to a right wing “… tax-cut plan that would mostly benefit the rich while blowing an even bigger hole in the deficit.”

    What is stronger and far more accurate?

    The government will borrow money from normal people and pass it directly to rich people as a gift from normal people who will then pay back the loan they borrowed to make a present for rich people.

    This is a new economic system that is also seen in states that force rate payers to pay for pipelines and give them to rich people.

  16. November 9, 2017 at 08:52

    Both parties support the Ponzi scheme to keep oligarchy in power. It’s not the politician that matters, it’s the policy. Corporate capitalism dominating for unlimited growth and maximum profits will kill us all, as Mike K states. There’s an article in Global Research today on massive honeybee loss in US, which means massive impact on food supply, and that’s only one environmental problem; also an article on numbers of humans killed by US interventions and wars since WWII, about 20 million.

    The big picture is what we have to look at, and partisan politics just doesn’t do that, too busy in trying to win. If humans don’t embrace life, peace, cooperation for a healthy planet for all, it’s ‘bye-”bye” instead of “buy-buy”. Neoliberalism of Democrats is nearly the same as neoconservatism of Republicans with a few shades of difference.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 9, 2017 at 09:19

      You are so right, as usual, Jessica. Too much capitalism, and to heavy an emphasis on consumerism and never a thought put forth on humanism is a bad ethos to live by. As my favorite band had once said, ‘Money Can’t But you Love’, and that’s the truth. It’s beyond time to put down the iPhone and take a look at nature, but who has that kind of time when it’s better to ‘Live in the Material World’. Maybe it is time to stop with talk radio and listen to pop music, I don’t know, but I do know this we American humans are loss in our own made for tv reality. Time to turn off the infotainment and take a walk in the woods. The real value to life won’t be found in a rising stock market in as much as it may be appreciated in all living things. A simple philosophy but a philosophy hardly ever used in modern day America. Joe

      • Louise
        November 9, 2017 at 16:48

        And this is part of my disagreement with Parry: We have only a pretense of a
        two party system. Both are the same when it comes to foreign policy and
        economics. All the so called “social issues” supposedly separating them
        are there for the clear purpose of DIVIDE AND CONQUER! They know that
        the public needs to believe in a “democracy”. And the m$m has been
        controlled to serve their purposes ever since Allen Dulles.
        Thus I see this “Russia-gate” or the “Clinton corruption” controversy
        only as kabuki theater.

        • Joe Tedesky
          November 9, 2017 at 22:41

          You say it well Louise. The plan from above is to continue to drive a wedge between the people, and thusly avoid the people grouping together to make some real change. Talk about be played like a four string fiddle, well we the people are a fricking stringed orchestra when it comes to being played by the mighty NeoZionist conductor. I wouldn’t be too hard on Robert Parry, but I’d unload a boatload of criticism on our lavish lying MSM. Although I like what you said Louise. Joe

          • Peter Loeb
            November 10, 2017 at 11:44

            I RELPEAT…

            I wrote above on economics. How does it work? What is it
            doing to us all?

            Most talk about Trump, Trump, Trump and how horrible
            he is. OK! He is.

            But that fails to address the economic realities. What happens
            when bankers/financial interests control your money?
            Did Obama pursue many of the identical policies
            that Trump is pursuing? What about shadow banks?
            Did Obama have a veteran shadow banker as Secretary
            of the Treasury? Are shadow banks unregulated? When
            banks crave billions to pay the debts do they pay them? (No,
            they borrow more money from unregulated shadow banks,
            make profits distributed to themselves—capital gains etc—
            and if (when) that goes to hell, they request more billions
            because they are too big to fail? And the get our money.Again!

            What has been the role of technology?. That came on a global
            scale about—1970. Millions can be invested somewhere
            else in a second, thus avoiding taxation.

            Does a speculator invest in coal mines or steel mills.?
            Why “waste” money on things in trouble with
            workers, supply problems etc. when a big-time
            investor can buy a piece of paper (eg derivatives) for more profit..
            No workers to pay etc.

            This is the world in which we live.

            As a non-economist, I am not competent to give the
            particulars. But we should all know the whys.

            No, it’s not the Russians’ fault! It is not
            China’s fault!. It is to a large extent how American
            capitalism works and it is now not only in the USA
            but global.

            As someone remarked, Donald Trump was schooled
            in an old worn-out theory of economics, a theory
            that gives many hope. Trump has played upon those
            fabricated desperate hopes. But he didn’t invent them..

            —–Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • mike k
      November 9, 2017 at 11:47

      IT’S BYE – BYE INSTEAD OF BUY- BUY. I like that one! If only Trump would get that…….

    • Skip Scott
      November 9, 2017 at 15:06

      I forget where I read it, but somebody is talking about making drone pollinators to replace the honey bees. How sick is that?!

  17. Danny Weil
    November 9, 2017 at 08:33

    So, true. Alas, Bannon knows the score, he understands the hatred for the Saudis, for example. Yesterday Brietbart, the mouthpiece for neo fascists ran the front page about a disabled Saudi to be beheaded by the government. 150 last year alone.

    He sat down with Randi Weingarten in an empty restaurant,; she, a class traitor and head of the AFT, and tells her he hates the hedge fund managers, the globalists. She walks away charmed, thinking that he is “formidable”.

    She also states: “He didn’t try to defend the budget cuts,” she said. “He’s a sponge, soaking in information, and he spent a lot of time listening.”

    Weingarten said Bannon may have thought there was common ground because she and her union have been critical of the power of hedge fund managers and “crony capitalists” that Bannon has criticized as well.

    “In the same way we have taken on the rich and crony capitalists and the hedge funds and the elite, you hear in his theory of the case that same scorn toward them as we have,” she said

    Bannon, Brietbart, Alex Jones and Drudge all do the same thing: they take a little from left issues, like hatred for the Saudis or pretending to be against oligarch rule, and they cobble it together into a right wing, fascist silly putty that bounces up and down, memerizing the people.

    His goal: to build a proto fascist party either within the reactionary republican party, or outside of it. He is understands the plighyt of the corporate demos and know they are not the formidable force he needs.

    He is working the youth. Turning Point USA is one example. Take a look:

    The rancid establishment fools like Weingarten seek to break bread with this monster.

  18. j. D. D.
    November 9, 2017 at 08:29

    Mr. Parry’s analysis, while insightful and perceptive on so many levels, ignores the elephant in the room, so far largely ignored by the MSM. Specifically, the burgeoning New Silk Road international economic-infrastructure development program being championed by China, which now includes 70 nations and more than half the world’s population. It is an alternative paradigm for international relations based, not on geopolitics, but on what the Chinese call “win-win.” Having lifted 700 million Chinese out of poverty in an astoundingly short period of two generations, the Chinese leadership has now officially made the extension of that miracle part of its foreign policy. Trump, for his part, is proud of his vibrant personal relationship to China’s President Xi and the possibilities for economic collaboration that it opens up. Similarly, despite the serious foreign policy gaffes and missteps noted by Mr. Parry, he has not given in to the relentless pressure to abandon dialogue with President Putin, exemplified by what he has rightly identified as Mueller’s “witch hunt.”. While the failure to implement his promises for the domestic economy can and will doom his presidency, the hope here is that President Trump will recognize that joint economic development with China, as well as a refocus away from regime change, will lead to infrastructure building and scientific-technological growth at home,with or without the present leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties.

  19. geeyp
    November 9, 2017 at 08:04

    Hillary came out and announced (along with the Associated Press) that she had won the Democratic primary. The voting here had just started and was not counted. Do you recall that? Yes, she cheated and lost the primary: Sanders won in many more states than her takeover of the party announced. I am done rehashing this. President Trump is the president. It certainly is a fact. At least it is not a Clinton or a George H.W. offspring. George W. twice lost his two elections.

  20. MaDarby
    November 9, 2017 at 07:56

    Talk of electoral “mandates” has always seemed absurd to me. If you take office then you have ALL the powers of that office and the use of all the institutions of power. The meaninglessness of this discussion is best exemplified by GW Bush. After having to resort to fixing the vote through corrupt judicial rulings in order to take power he ruled with complete control of all of the power of the Empire without the slightest hesitation. The word “mandate” was never uttered – power is all that matters.

    Everybody is wasting time trying to work with a corrupt empire who’s only “law” is the law of power. Right now today the Empire of which the US is only one part is starving 20,000 million people to death while bombing them and allowing Cholera to spread killing children by the thousands.

    What effect could discussions about “mandates” (non-existent “mandates”) possibly have on the slaughter in Yemen or the slaughter the US led empire is spreading all over the globe? NONE!

    The nation state has failed the global system of sovereign nation states has run its course and failed. The US nation state is no stronger than any other, its “sovereignty” was sold off to the oligarchy which has power in the West.

    You want to know where the real power is where the Imperial HQ is look no further than the House of Saud. They have the power to arrest men with tens of billions of net worth – and take it from them because they (the empire) control the global financial system. The US institutions, military, CIA etc serve the Empire no other master.

    It is becoming more and more clear where the power really is – with the transnational oligarchy headed by the Saud family.

    The best news for the rest of us is that the oligarchs are now fighting among themselves.

    • Sam F
      November 9, 2017 at 18:23

      The Saudis are mere accomplices of the zionists and have little or no support in the US. The zionists include all of Clinton’s top ten “donors,” control nearly every Congress person, and nearly all US mass media, while the Saudis control none of that.

  21. November 9, 2017 at 07:23

    Trump is an idiotic stupid man imbued of his ugly person. We have elected in France the same kind of useless communication’s champion as president followed by a majority of dreamers from his own quickly set party. Both supposed to be influent nations with UN’s veto power are really in bad shape. Let us hope than Misters Putin and Xi-Jinping show us the way to a less violent World. Beware ! The USA-NATO-EU mafia is Humanity’s real Enemy not the other way around with Russia and China.

  22. Realist
    November 9, 2017 at 06:01

    Want an answer to your last question, Robert? Just read the NYT, WaPo Whoppers and the Huffnpuff Post. The Democrats are just as delusional as ever following Tuesday’s elections. They think the results vindicate their insanity and are making great plans to take back both houses of congress a year from now. “Serious” pundits opine that a 77-yr old Joe Bidden is going to run against and beat Trump in 2020–or beat Mike Pence subsequent to Trump’s impeachment.

    I’ve got news for the Dems, they will damage their scatterbrained self-immolating image even worse if they push for premature regime change in the congress, the courts or the 25th amendment. Trump himself is smart enough to see that he cannot win the presidency again, unless the Dems are bonkers enough to re-nominate Hillary. He is going to choose not to run, saying (correctly) that the time has come to pass the torch to a new generation. It will constitute at least one correct decision he will have made in the White House.

    Frankly, I don’t see Pence as a winner either, yet the fact that the Dems are entertaining the notion of running near-octogenarians for the presidency (Bernie Sanders would be 79, and Hillary, no spring chicken would herself be 74 come election day), underscores what a weak bench they have after nine years of massive losses at the ballot box ever since Barack Obama was elected. If Pence doesn’t get the GOP nod by default, one of their many other fallen icons (we saw over a dozen drop by the wayside in 2016) will probably get an ill-advised do-over, maybe even aging Mitt Romney will get a third hurrah. Just please, no more Bush’s.

    Maybe France and Austria, with their shiny new Millennial leaders, at ages 35 and 31, are sending the appropriate message in these times of desperation. If Trump’s Svengali Banon really believes that the generation of the “Fourth Turning” is meant to rescue America from itself, it might be time for the GOP to do some craddle robbing when looking for a presidential candidate. If given the choice between an energetic 38-yr old, with no criminal record yet, and a near 80-yr old geezer, with a history of brown nosing the Clinton’s and Wall Street, I think the populace will gamble and go long once again. But please don’t make it George P. Bush, Jeb Bush Jr., or either of Dubya’s daughters. If the Dems nominate Chelsea Clinton, it’s time to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia.

    • Seer
      November 9, 2017 at 06:48

      When the DNC kicked Tulsi Gabbard off stage is when the path to failure was firmly established. However, I suppose that another “non-white” person from Hawaii would be savagely attacked just like Obama was (the problem I had was that it was based on racism).

      I was holding out hope for Trump when it was rumored (not sure if it was fact) that he was meeting with Gabbard. Who knows, maybe she helped him understand the situation in Syria? (anyone else that was put forward by the System would have had Syria turned into a wasteland by now)

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 9, 2017 at 09:07

        I keep hearing Kamala Harris name being trashed around as a possible New Democrat leader, and then I weep.

        • Dave P.
          November 9, 2017 at 21:09

          Joe –

          Kamala Harris, like Barak Obama is pretty, and like him shallow too. She has a law degree, which is almost a prerequisite in politics. Very ambitious, she married the right person with connections with the real King Makers and behind the scene Rulers of the Country. Since Obama got elected president, she has been lusting for the Crown. If elected, she will surpass even Barak Obama in her loyalty to those in power – and there will be a big celebration in Israel. She will make people, who want change, weep; that is for sure.

          • Joe Tedesky
            November 9, 2017 at 22:31

            While I’m still trying to learn about this woman Kamala Harris, I will admit to you Dave that my cynicism left over from the many past elections, and a few past presidents, makes me very skeptical to say the least. I can only hope that if Kamala gets the presidential nomination that she turns out to be the real deal. If not then we are all back at the very place we all started from, and that is nowheresville. So let’s have some hope that someday we voters have something beyond the lessor of the two evils to choose from, and we get a good president. Joe

  23. john wilson
    November 9, 2017 at 05:25

    I take issue with Parry’s comment that the Americans are, “bogged down in overseas wars” No they are NOT: the wars America is involved in is by design and choice. They could pack up their guns and go home any time and the countries they are fighting in would be glad to see the back of them.

  24. backwardsevolution
    November 9, 2017 at 03:38

    The media have absolutely skewered the man. He can’t even stand still without being called an oaf. People call him an orange-headed orangutan, and then they all laugh. Can you imagine if they had called Obama a curly-headed chimp? I believe something like 93% of the time the mainstream media are negatively reporting on Trump.

    His own party (who are beholden to corporate interests, not you) want him gone, along with the Democrats (who are also beholden to corporate interests, not you). His phone conversations were bugged, he’s been smeared with the Russiagate nonsense, and many people on this very site are quite happy about this. Well, think again.

    If Obama and his wife had had to put up with a tenth of what Trump has endured, I do believe Obama would have been stumbling and bumbling too. But they didn’t smear him, did they, and he didn’t stumble. Why? Because he played ball, he toed the line, he sashayed in and read from the approved script, and everybody left him alone. And we’re supposed to be happy about this? This is good? “You want me to bomb Libya and take out the leader? When do you want it done?” Great! But he looked good, didn’t he? He made America look good. The mask obviously worked.

    If you want to tell me that Carter was a better man than Trump, I’ll go along with that, but don’t expect me to believe that Trump is worse than Clinton, Bush or Obama. Trump is paying a heavy price for wanting to change things. He got rid of the TPP very quickly. The corporate interests must have been incensed over this move. He wants to control the borders, but that’s against the corporate bible; there must be a stream of cheap labor to keep wages down. 100 demerit points.

    NATO and perpetual wars? “Hands off, Mr. Trump. Touching this could get a president assassinated.” Cheaper healthcare? “No, you can’t touch that either.”

    The country is being strangled by multinationals, the intelligence agencies have got you by the nuts, but somehow “Trump” is the failure?

    • Realist
      November 9, 2017 at 06:33

      Not counting Kennedy who was struck down, perhaps by the Deep State itself, has there been any president since Eisenhower who has not left office roundly hated or thoroughly in disgrace? I include Reagan because of Iran-Contra, trickle down economics and the bloody proxy wars in Latin America, even though he was smart enough to take up Gorbachev’s offer to end the Cold War. Unfortunately, there was no one willing to follow up the “peace” celebrations with humane, moral foreign policy towards Russia after all the bows were taken, not even the supposed pragmatic realist Bushdaddy. He never even delivered the “peace dividend,” just more wars in Panama and Iraq (back when newscasters still pronounced the name of that country properly). Every president since simply adopted a policy of smash and grab towards Russia, until Putin finally said “nyet” to Obomber on the Ukraine and Crimea, causing the Peace Prize winner to re-create the Cold War in spades. A major reason for choosing Trump was to abort the New Cold War before it could metastasize into World War III. It proved impossible for him to stop the process, but maybe he slowed it down a little. Hillary would have rained cruise missiles on Syria the day after her inauguration.

      • backwardsevolution
        November 9, 2017 at 08:40

        Hi, Realist. “It proved impossible for him to stop the process, but maybe he slowed it down a little.” Yes, I think he did. If he and the North Korean leader can just keep yelling back and forth at each other like a couple of unruly teenagers, perhaps they can stall for more time.

        I think Trump had good intentions, but probably in his wildest dreams (mine too) he couldn’t have envisioned what he would be up against. If leaders are actually serious about changing things, really draining the swamp, you can almost understand why they come in and fire everyone from mid-level on up. I think Trump underestimated how swampy the swamp was. It’s a lot darker than even I had imagined.

        I am just glad that the people of Syria escaped the wrath of Hillary.

        Take care, Realist.

    • dahoit
      November 9, 2017 at 14:31

      Great post.

  25. deang
    November 9, 2017 at 02:40

    What is amazing is that Clinton still won the popular vote, a.k.a. the actual election, by such a big margin. Voters may not have liked her personally, but they were savvy enough to recognize the greater danger in Trump – except for white voters, that is, who voted overwhelmingly for the monster no matter their income level; it wasn’t just working-class and poor whites who favored Trump but whites of all classes, both genders, and all ages. The continuing emphasis on only working-class whites is misplaced.

    • Seer
      November 9, 2017 at 03:37


      What’s the strategic value in pulling a lever for a mass murderer?

      BTW – “Clinton still won the popular vote, a.k.a. the actual election” – if she won the election then why is the dotard sitting in the POTUS seat? Until the basis of electing the POTUS gets changed from that of being based on count totals of electorates “winning” an election by popular vote is a non-sequitur.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 9, 2017 at 12:57

      I’m referring to a couple of Wikis now, the one for the national election and the one for California.

      Nationally, the vote totals were listed as Clinton having 65,853,516, and Trump 62,984,825. That’ slightly less than a 4 million margin for Clinton.

      But in California, it was 8,753,788 for Clinton vs 4,483,810 for Trump, or slightly more than 4 million.

      So it is obvious that the entire Clinton margin came from California where illegals could vote as easily as I do in my local polling place.

      Obviously that doesn’t account for Republican cheating in the other states – IMO Clinton would have won without the voter suppression and gerrymandering and all the rest.

      But Clinton’s cheating meant that she was the candidate instead of Sanders, who would have trounced Trump despite all the Republican vote fraud.

      Trump is a horrible president and a horrible person. Clinton is a horrible person and would have been as bad or worse in the Presidency. I voted for neither one of them – there is a point where “lesser evil” doesn’t hack it anymore.

  26. Zachary Smith
    November 9, 2017 at 01:43

    So, the new political question is whether Trump can belatedly learn from his failures and finally undertake some actions at home and abroad that actually serve the interests of the American people and the world. Or will he continue to bumble and stumble along?

    This seems to be an opinion issue, so I’ll offer up mine. Trump is ignorant, mostly because he is intellectually lazy. Unfortunately he has given no indication he’s very bright, either. I’m not saying the man is stupid, but until I see evidence to the contrary I’ll say he possesses at most an IQ of 120. Well above average, but not even in the ball park of those he works with or encounters in foreign leaders.

    Two more downsides are his age and his wealth. Most everything he learned during his formative years is outdated, and because he is a wealthy man he has never needed to correct that. He can surround himself with suck-ups and “yes” men and smart lawyers.

    So will he change his ways? My prediction is “no”, his oversized ego and case-hardened arrogance make that unlikely. Can the man win reelection? On that issue I’m with many others who have commented – the Democrats aren’t worth a pewter ****, and will look for a way to lose. The hacks Trump has appointed are busy destroying the US government, and a lot of the people wearing the “D” by their name are not a bit unhappy about that process. If they run Hillary again, or the likes of Biden, we’ll know that losing is A-OK with them.

    (BTW, I really do hope I’m wrong on every prediction I’ve made here)

    • Skip Scott
      November 9, 2017 at 14:56

      I would be really surprised if his IQ was 120. 100 is average. I can’t see it any higher than that. And his emotional maturity is around that of the average 14 year old.

  27. geeyp
    November 9, 2017 at 00:22

    What the WSJ said was the 4.1% unemployment rate was fake news. Just goes to show how we can soften our critiques. In truth, it is an outright lie.

  28. geeyp
    November 9, 2017 at 00:14

    The WSJ recently stated that the unemployment rate is currently at 4.1%. Wow, that is not true and is fake news. The unemployment rate is much more likely at 34%. And, I will add, you cannot say that it is ’cause of President Trump!

    • AH
      November 9, 2017 at 01:21

      I cannot blame the unemployment rate on Trump yet, but he’s not doing anything currently to change the situation. So soon I will be able to.

  29. BobS
    November 9, 2017 at 00:09

    “The Democrats might have taken away from their defeat the warning that they had forgotten how to speak to the white working class…”

    Using words that reflect overt racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and homophobia?

    • Skip Scott
      November 10, 2017 at 12:41

      It is racist to imply that working class whites are all xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and racists. Maybe they just didn’t like being called deplorables because they wear a blue collar to work, and are tired of getting sh*t on by faux democrats like the Clintons and Obama.

  30. geeyp
    November 9, 2017 at 00:01

    The fluoride has existed in our water supply a lot further in time than Nov. 2016. I agree with most of what Annie has written, and I also agree with …wards-evolution. How to have a happy medium is the question I struggle with. In the 1920’s and 1930’s more people were economically affected than now. Hard to imagine! There taking up of arms and pushing against the powers had strength in nos. That is how the put downs from the many mouths of middle class “elitists” happened after the election. They were not affected from 2008 crash to understand what the average person was/is going through.

  31. stephen l kelley
    November 8, 2017 at 23:30

    both the democrats and republicans continue their silly games. only a practical and morally based socialist revolution can reverse this mess. i am 65 years old and still believe this as strongly as i did as a teenager.

  32. Howard Brazee
    November 8, 2017 at 22:10

    How can either party work for the working class without giving up their corrupting Big Money bribes?

    But the problem is bigger. Automation is going to continue to take away good jobs, and nobody knows what to do about that.

    • Seer
      November 9, 2017 at 05:05

      A point that very few get.

      The only way to have pensions and such is off of future growth. Market growth is pretty much gone, leaving only growth in profits. Companies are squeezed, which in turn means a further reduction in human labor, which in turn means a decrease in market size; and so on and so on it continues; a downward spiral. Add in that the world’s populations are aging. How, then, are robots going to be able to produce profits for the aged when the youth isn’t there to pull the market up? AND the products aren’t for the aged? When one looks at all this it is clear why there’s been such a battle over health care: an investment in the dying, at the expense of the youth.

      I could be so cynical to state that the fossil fuel industry isn’t so much under attack because of environment impacts, though that is real, but because the aging populations’ needs will be less dependent on fossil fuels by fact of the lifestyle that older people will/do have. Much less mobile. A decline in fossil fuel demand means a loss of economies of scale, which means higher fossil fuel prices, which leads to less mobility. That there’s a lot of push toward non-fossil-fuel-based energy isn’t a surprise. Ha! Motorized (electric) wheelchairs and solar panels. We’re going to turn this thing around!

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 9, 2017 at 09:00

        Once the robot technology economy takes precedent over human consumerism then it curtains for the bulk of us humans. The last of the last laughs will be when the robots decide they don’t need the elite 1%, the only living mammals who will benefit is the chicken and the cow.

        • dahoit
          November 9, 2017 at 14:24

          Don’t forget the pigs.

          • Joe Tedesky
            November 9, 2017 at 22:16

            You did, and thanks for reminding me.

  33. GBerg
    November 8, 2017 at 22:09

    A trenchant piece. Do not despair–satirize! Call in Jonathan Swift.

    Insanity is resistant to facts. It is fought with humor.

    Lemme see…
    The odd new 2016 conspiracy theory that Putin & ‘ those big, bad Russkies’ control US politics–at least in the upper Midwest–is now accepted Gospel. (Why was this not detected before THEY put the fluoride in our water in November 2016?)

    And anyone who says “Maybe not,” is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ heretic– who should be burned at the stake for helping elect a Shakespearean buffoon– instead of the saintly Lady MacBeth– Hillary of the Hamptons!

  34. David G
    November 8, 2017 at 21:55

    The Dems would rather lose elections than break away from their masters in Big Finance, Big Business, and Big War. They’ll be able to ride disgust with the Orc from New York with some success through 2020, and then be left, once again, with nothing.

    One thing I admire about the Repubs is that the base manages, at least a little bit, to frighten their officials. The drawback, of course, is that that base consists of some of the worst troglodytes on the planet.

    • backwardsevolution
      November 9, 2017 at 00:44

      David G – good comments, except unfortunately the troglodytes are on both sides of the river.

  35. W. R. Knight
    November 8, 2017 at 21:29

    “Neither side has shown much aptitude for learning.”

    That’s because neither side has much aptitude for learning. You have to have it before you can show it.

  36. mike k
    November 8, 2017 at 20:57

    When it dawns on people very soon now that we have set in motion the inexorable physical and biological forces that will lead to human extinction, it will be too late to prevent it, and all the historical models of politics, economics, and medicine will be found to be unable to put Humpty together again. Until then – and it won’t be long now – we can enjoy the same old games and pretenses until they all become impossible in a dying world. Most of us will cling onto false hopes, and never know what hit us – our willful ignorance is that deep.

  37. historicvs
    November 8, 2017 at 20:26

    While we reminisce over the past glories of the Democratic Party, perhaps we should instead remember that FDR came into office hostile to the working class, and was dedicated to using the power of government to bail out failing capitalism. His first New Deal was a stimulus package, help for the banks, and loans to corporations. But working men and women were reacting to the economic disaster we call the Great Depression by organizing and fighting back. Starting in 1934, they carried out militant strikes and protests, often culminating in armed battles, as in San Francisco, Minneapolis, Toledo, Flint, and other cities across the country. On a level far beyond anything seen since the militant 1890s, they challenged the right of the bosses to run, and, in some cases, to even own, the companies. In several places, protestors took over cities. And in the process they demonstrated a willingness to fight pro-establishment liberals and progressives.

    The massive workers’ movements of the 1930s and 1940s established the unions in the mass production industries and led to series of reforms, including unemployment insurance and Social Security. American workers won meaningful improvements only after they began to fight on an unprecedented scale these victories were the result of solidarity and militancy from below, not because of the moral goodness of liberal Democratic politicians.

    FDR’s second New Deal was an attempt to ally with union leaders to create a state-sponsored system of union recognition and negotiations that would return the working class to manageability. FDR and subsequent Democratic Party politicians fought all expressions of labor militancy. Unfortunately, most labor leaders continued to uncritically back FDR and the Democratic Party, and this relationship ultimately led to the famous “Treaty of Detroit” after WWII. In response to another nation-wide strike wave, union leaders and employers agreed on a labor-management framework that limited workers’ ability to stage the independent struggles necessary to the preservation of their hard-won gains.

    This set up U.S. workers up for the attacks that began in earnest in the 1970s, when the post-war boom ended and businesses tried to regain their rate of profit by attacking workers’ standard of living. In general, the union leadership did not mobilize the rank-and-file to fight back. Instead they blamed Reagan, Bush, or the Republicans in Congress, and looked for some liberals to protect them. We’ve seen how well that worked out.

    • backwardsevolution
      November 9, 2017 at 00:20

      historicvs – thanks for that. It’s always so much better without the rose-colored glasses on. I had also heard that FDR and the elite were worried about the creep of communism, so they set out to appease in order to avoid that. They did it to “avoid” something.

      “…these victories were the result of solidarity and militancy from below, not because of the moral goodness of liberal Democratic politicians.” Yes! So many don’t see this, though. They just think that these hard-nosed politicians and business people somehow reached into their souls and out poured sweetness and light, goodness and benevolence! Yeah, right. No wonder people are so easy to suck in.

      The elite set out to crush the unions, and crush them they have! The time to have stopped this crap was back in the 80’s. They’ve made sure that there are more than enough workers for every single job there is. In fact, they’re flooding the country with cheap labor, and all to the cheers of the benevolent progressives and Democrats who somehow think it’s smart to work against their own best interest. But, hey, the government and corporate interests are sure glad there are people around like this; makes it so much easier for them to screw the whole country blind.

      An interesting video I watched had the U.S. politicians working out the offshoring of jobs to China way back in the 70’s. China and the U.S. colluded to make it happen. The elite of both countries were going to get filthy rich, which is exactly what happened.

      The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans at selling the country out. Together they’ve destroyed a country, a culture, a way of life. When things get real bad, as they will, they will simply leave.

      The politicians, government, the media, academia, the courts – bought and paid for.

      • dahoit
        November 9, 2017 at 14:19

        Trump says in China;We are complicit in Chinas trade deals.msn will use that to sway their duped.

      • Dave P.
        November 9, 2017 at 17:36


        “The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans at selling the country out. Together they’ve destroyed a country, a culture, a way of life.”

        I always understand your comments completely. You are right on that. For more than fifty years I have tried to explain to the people you mentioned – in the Midwest and elsewhere – that Russia and Russians are not your enemy. I tried even the race angle that they have similar culture and religion you have, and also the same race. The women in Russia are emancipated and man and woman relations are free and open as they are here in U.S. . And that these economic/political systems of Nations have come and gone.

        But I did not succeed in making them understand any of it. They have been completely brainwashed for a long time now. It is true to some extent in my house too, and with just about all the relatives I have. Societies and cultures in this condition lose all raison d’etre to exist. Something else will supersede what we have now. I liked very much ” A way of life” you mentioned above.

    • dave
      November 9, 2017 at 01:12

      “[T]hese victories were the result of solidarity and militancy from below, not because of the moral goodness of liberal Democratic politicians.”

      Right on, man!

    • Peter Loeb
      November 10, 2017 at 07:54

      WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 70’s???

      Something did, that’s for sure.

      It is to be noted that few to no critics highlight the vast
      economic changes that began more furiously in
      1970 and continued ion the 21rst century.

      Economist Jack Rasmus analyzes these for us.
      His greates landmark book is SYSTEMIC FRAGILITY
      IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY, unfortunately the worst
      title imaginable. But this book explains the functioning
      of our 21rst century economy as well as an
      analysis of its historical back ground.

      is assumes basic information in SYSTEMIC FRAGILITY…”
      and answers many of the basic questions we all fail to

      As Rasmus wrote of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan who
      repeatedly referred to “conundrums”. That translates, “I
      don’t know what the hell is going on.”comments Rasmus. Rasmus
      gives answers.

      I tend to disagree with Rasmus’ reliance on American labor
      as a “savior”, but understand his loyalty to labor where
      his career began. Read instead Gabriel Kolko’s
      which made Kolko no friends in labor. This history
      basically ends where Rasmus begins: the 70’s.

      Our responsibility is to learn and assess.

      The learning process is not always as much fun
      as a trip to the beach. But it’s necessary.

      It is not a “dismal science”. It explains so much
      about all of us,

      I dare you!

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  38. Charlotte Ruse
    November 8, 2017 at 18:51

    “A parallel question is whether the Democrats will misinterpret their strong showing on Tuesday as encouragement to continue ignoring their own political and institutional shortcomings – and to keep on using Russia to bash Trump. Neither side has shown much aptitude for learning.”

    The DEMS will continue business as usual–neglecting progressive concerns and persisting in their warmongering against Russia. Let’s not forget that the DEMS are aligned with the intelligence agencies and AIPAC. In addition there’s a slew of retired CIA agents that will be running as Democrats.

    As far as Trump changing and becoming a “man of the people,” there’s a greater chance that Hillary will give away every penny she ever secured from the Clinton Foundation.

    • November 8, 2017 at 19:27

      At least it seems that Donna Brazile has driven a stake into the heart of Hillary’s political ambitions. Probably more to cover her backside than any apocalyptic change of character, but it is interesting (if not significant) that she dedicated her book in part to Seth Rich.

      • BobS
        November 9, 2017 at 00:20

        My guess is that Brazile is auditioning for her own show on Fox.
        A black, female ‘Democrat’ would help to restore the “balance” that Alan Colmes once provided for 10 or 15 minutes in a 24 hour day.

  39. Drew Hunkins
    November 8, 2017 at 18:43

    Trump sold what was left of his soul a few months ago when the neo-cons wrestled control of his administration away from the nationalist Bannon wing. Say what you want about the Bannon wing, but they do seem to care to a certain extent about struggling working families here in America. Their policy solutions can be half-baked (and fused with some execrable xenophobia) but they were the prime impetus behind Trump’s hostility towards the “free” trade agreements.

    Of course Trump was always more or less hinged to the destructive and absurd Ayn Randian fantasy when it came to his domestic agenda, minus his healthy aversion to the TPP (which, to give him credit, he nixed out within his first month in office). But foreign policy wise — aside from him taking the Adelson, Zio line on Iran — he was never a total dumpster fire. In fact, his enthusiasm for rapprochement with the Kremlin was the primary reason he was immediately disparaged incessantly in the mass media. Trump’s desire to make peace with Moscow was probably the only reason to even think of voting for him. (Full disclosure: I voted for Jill Stein.)

    Most Democrats sold their souls years ago when they ignored labor and working people of all colors and focused on Benetton ad politics while sucking up Wall Street dollars, all the while bending over backwards to appease Tel Aviv. Never forget it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, repealed AFDC, eliminated Glass-Steagal, bombed Iraq on a weekly basis throughout the 1990s, and obliterated much of Yugoslavia.

    One has to go back to c. 1966 to find a genuine substantive benefit — Medicare — that the Democrats actually delivered to the beleaguered masses. 1966!

    • anon
      November 8, 2017 at 19:32

      Yes, that and the Civil RIghts Act of 1964 were the last honest acts of the Democrats, fifty years ago, and likely only the last gasp of the JFK/RFK/MLK anomaly. The Reps have never done anything for the people and firmly oppose it. We lost democracy to the influence of economic power a half-century ago, and cannot recover it without paying the full price in blood, trebled by the loss of a free press and fair elections.

  40. November 8, 2017 at 18:42

    “A parallel question is whether the Democrats will misinterpret their strong showing on Tuesday as encouragement to continue ignoring their own political and institutional shortcomings – and to keep on using Russia to bash Trump.”

    The answer is they will do exactly that.

    I have no hope for the Democratic Party to become the party that once upon a time I thought it was. My only hope is that the party collapses and the sooner the better, leaving room for a new 2nd major party to arise in the ashes.

    I’ll vote my conscience, which means voting 3rd party, but I have no hope that a 3rd party can grow into something more while the two existing major parties are around. That’s now how it happened before.

    The first new party to arise in this country, after the two party system had established itself, was the Whig Party. This only happened after the Federalist Party collapsed in the late second decade of the 19th Century. Then the other major party, the Jeffersonian Republicans (also called Democrats,) simply absorbed a lot of Federalists and also adopted a lot of Federalist positions. The result was for a brief period, called the ‘Era of Good Feelings,’ which was concurrent with the presidency of James Monroe, we had a one party system. The natural result of this was that the one party split in two. The result was the Jacksonian Democrats, who claimed the mantle of being the continuation of the Jeffersonian Republicans (also called Democrats) and the new party of the Whigs (which became the home of many former Federalists.)

    The only other time a new party arose was when the Whigs themselves collapsed 30 years later over slavery. Within two years the new Republican Party arose. Four years after the Republicans organized in 1854 they dominated the state houses across the north of the Union and they won the presidency in 1860. A lot of 3rd party advocates cite that victory of Lincoln as proof a 3rd party can win- but it isn’t. The Republicans had already become the 2nd major party because they had room to fill the space from the collapse of the Whigs. (A lot of former Whigs became Republicans along with Free Soil and Anti-Slavery Democrats.)

    Since then no 3rd party, even ones headed by former popular presidents (Theodore Roosevelt) or former popular vice presidents (Henry Wallace) have been able to build their 3rd party into anything beyond a third place contender in presidential races and a footnote in congressional races. The best they’ve been able to do is push one of the major parties in their direction, like the Populists pushing the Democrats left or the George Wallace movement pushing the Republicans right.

    But if the Democrats collapse, then maybe there is hope. Maybe then a new workers party can arise.

    • anon
      November 8, 2017 at 19:22

      Thanks for this review of party histories, Miranda. Both the Dems and Reps have collapsed in honesty and coherence, but their strength depends only upon advertising, until the people abandon their TVs and demand an end to the tyranny of gold. That will be after the US foreign wars are defeated and the people have no choice but to rebel despite the resulting slaughter, later in this century. Then the Dems and Reps may collapse in voter support as recognized oligarchy tools and enemies of the people.

  41. Annie
    November 8, 2017 at 18:38

    The democratic party left it’s base, the working class, as well as union support a while back, decades back, and Bill Clinton pushed the party much further in that direction, and all for courting corporate money. Not only have they abandoned what was their base they have cultivated the top 10% in this country. Blacks and Latinos may not be Trump fans, but they certainly didn’t turn out to vote for Clinton the way they did for Obama. Maybe they also felt betrayed, because many of them thought their lives would have improved under Obama’s administration, but it didn’t. Financially they took a downward turn. Also, in sabotaging Bernie’s campaign, which I knew from the beginning, turned people like me against them even more so then before. Once a democrat I’m now an independent. Democrats like Hillary and Schumer, the majority really, show distain for those democrats who want to push through more liberal policies. You reap what you sow.

    I agree that Trump acts out in ways that are childish, and his policies don’t bode well for the “deplorables” he courted, but people within his own party, and the media certainly doesn’t help. Neither does the so called left in this country when they attack him so viciously. In almost every article posted on “left” wing sites the author finds it necessary to throw in a nasty line about Trump even if the article in no way relates to the topic they are discussing. In the previous article by David Marks he equated Trump’s behavior to that of the rapist Weinstein. Absurd and inappropriate.

    • Dave P.
      November 9, 2017 at 03:40

      Annie –

      Your comments: ” In almost every article posted on “left” wing sites the author finds it necessary to throw in a nasty line about Trump even if the article in no way relates to the topic they are discussing.”

      Throw a nasty line against Trump ! The media has spent more than 50% of its time and energy on bashing Trump and Russia for almost a year now.

      • Stygg
        November 9, 2017 at 19:26

        She means that even the people who should know better throw these kinds of digs at Trump into otherwise cogent articles due to their conditioning. And she’s right. Seemingly everyone is happy to play armchair psychologist to a bunch of people they know nothing about. Surely you’ve encountered them as well, the random people from all walks of life who will be happy to tell you exactly what Russian motives are with that smirking condescension. Not only do they believe it completely, they think they arrived at these conclusions themselves through careful analysis of the facts rather than having it manufactured for them.

        I am less certain of what friends and family, people i’ve known my entire lives, are thinking than everyone around me seems to be about total strangers. What a world.

        • Dave P.
          November 10, 2017 at 00:41

          Stygg – I misunderstood Annie’s comment. Thanks for correcting me. All I meant was that this whole Russia thing is absolute insanity. It has been going on for a hundred years now with a short break during 1990’s when all these Oligarchs were looting Russia and bringing it to Israel, London, and other destinations in The West.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      November 9, 2017 at 13:44

      This is a great comment with which I fully concur. It correctly describes what is going on now. The Parry article was also spot on for that reason.

  42. November 8, 2017 at 18:08

    I really don´t believe that the Government in Washington gives a rat´s ass what the American people think. The people who really count, the 1/10 0f 1% could not care less which party is in power. they own them both. There is a reason that the US elites have militarized civilian police, strengthened the national guard and spends more than a trillion a year on the military and that is that they now feel that even if there should be an open rebellion that they have the forces in place to not only fight it off but defeat it. So Hillary and Donald or which ever buffoon should replace them can say what ever they want, enact legislation that is against the wishes of 90% of the population, give themselves huge handouts in tax relief, and safely accept enourmous bribes, whatever, because they feel that they are safely behind a curtain of steel and are immune from the great unwashed. If they start a world war or if the American people should wake up and hit the bricks with their guns, this scum will just hide out in their bomb proof bunkers until the military kills off the rebels and or the country they have started a war with.

    • November 8, 2017 at 19:07

      Thanks for your comments. I agree. I think the only hope of We The People of the USA is to suffer a massive economic / cultural implosion which wrecks most lives in America. Then we’ll see change, if then. That’s what it takes: massive suffering to enact change in a fascist state. In this way, a heavily armed populace such as we now have in this country may be able to grease the skids into a better nation, or worse, hard to predict any future for America anymore now that the government is so totally whacked out and crazy.

      • Annie
        November 8, 2017 at 21:03

        Why would you want to see your fellow Americans take such a drastic blow to bring about change? I may be critical of this government, but I do care about the American people, and why should change come about by devastating their lives? You are preaching a violent overthrow of this country, and I certainly can’t ascribe to violence of any kind. Are you one of those gun toting Americans? By your statement how are you any different then a militaristic US who pursues wars for profit and control?

        • Seer
          November 9, 2017 at 03:01

          I predict those very things. HOWEVER, it is not because it’s what I WANT. What “I” want and what will happen are two different things. I am living in an empire. History is quite clear the path of empires ALWAYS lead to collapse.

          The “US government” is an institution devoted to a system that is based on a completely impossible preposition: perpetual growth. And this is EXACTLY the same failing of all of history’s past (trail of dead) empires.

          See my posting above re reading Glubb’s writing. Find that and read it and you will learn how it all goes down.

          “I certainly can’t ascribe to violence of any kind.”

          LOL. If you’re an American citizen you’re complicit in it. Feel free to suggest a means by which the US MIC can be peacefully disassembled. Keep in mind that this is the mechanism/entity that provides both economic power and protection for the ruling POWERS. And as Chomsky properly notes, governments by their very nature are violent. If one wants a government it HAS to be violent. You see, life IS a conundrum. There are no “solutions” (the very word denotes finality, and as long as time exists there is no such thing). It is, therefore, about survival, survival with humans that are sociopathic: and then there are those that give “of themselves freely,” offering themselves up before their “god” by killing swarms of other humans- you’re going to make it by all of these obstacles peacefully? Yeah, I’d like to think that that’s possible too, but reality says that that is no more than self-deception.

        • Dave P.
          November 9, 2017 at 03:22

          Annie –

          I don’t think any of the people who write these comments on CN articles are gun toting Americans or preach violent overthrow of government here or elsewhere. Actually the people who write these comments are the ones who genuinely care for this country and hope that it become a better country with right priorities.

          But I hope you understand how rotten the Ruling Establishment, and People in Power have become, following policies which are very destructive for the World as well as for the welfare its’ own citizens. And the People like us are exasperated. If one really thinks about it, it is true that the masses will wake up only if their own comfortable lives are affected with economic or some other disaster.

    • anon
      November 8, 2017 at 19:09

      Yes, the USG is an outright tyranny of gold, a fake democracy behind a facade of advertising and has no relationship whatsoever to the declared principles of the U.S. The people deserve better but no longer have the courage or the means to get it. Its foreign wars will be defeated, but its oligarchy can tyrannize the people until they have no choice but to rebel and be slaughtered, and then organize secretly for generations. Without a free press and fair elections, the US will pay once more for democracy, probably the highest price ever paid, likely millions of deaths in a tragic revolution later in this century.

      All because we did not protect the institutions of democracy from economic power.

      • Annie
        November 8, 2017 at 21:16

        Ever hear of a non-violent revolution. Read Chris Hedges on that. I can’t abide anyone who preaches violence. You, and those who make these kinds of statements are being completely hypocritical.

        • backwardsevolution
          November 8, 2017 at 23:33

          Annie – talk to that poor sucker from Catalonia, Spain (who is presently residing in Belgium because it’s the only country that won’t extradite him back to Spain).

          How did those non-violent demonstrations work out for the people from Catalonia? I too believe in peace and non-violence, but you are an idiot if you believe that the people running the government (comprised mostly of psychopathic types) are going to roll over because you show up with a sign in your hand. These people actually rub their hands together in glee whenever they bump off a sovereign leader. Good luck with that.

          No, when people weren’t paying attention, the country got taken over. The bottom got bought off by benefits, free healthcare, cell phones, subsidized housing, university spots they didn’t earn – stop me before I get carried away. Whatever jobs these people had were quickly taken over by new immigrants.

          The middle got sucked in by propaganda, keeping up with the Jones’, and took on too much debt. Which might have been fine if their friggin’ jobs hadn’t been offshored to Asia or they weren’t having to compete with H-1B’s coming in and working for less.

          The upper class on the east and west coasts are doing fine because they’re busy propping up the 1%, happy in their cushy, secure jobs. They keep their mouths shut, pay most of the taxes, and keep on trucking.

          You actually believe you’re going to get your country back without some pushing and shoving? Against people who could care less about you, who keep their money in offshore tax havens, who moved their businesses to Asia to benefit from cheap labor, who take out every single world leader who gets in their way, who coup and false flag, lie, cheat and steal? Against this media?

          Total corruption. Everybody taking what they can while the getting is good. This is a free-for-all.

          The only way the country could be taken back in a peaceful fashion would be for absolutely everyone to get on the same page and refuse to go into work for about a week (a few days would probably do it). Bring everything to a standstill, shut it down. This would get their attention.

          And then what? Who you gonna call? Will the traditionalists/nationalists take control, or will the globalists/internationalists? And then it could get really interesting as the two sides fight it out.

          I do not see a happy ending here.

          • Annie
            November 9, 2017 at 00:51

            How did those non-violent demonstrations work out for the people from Catalonia? I too believe in peace and non-violence, but you are an idiot if you believe that the people running the government (comprised mostly of psychopathic types) are going to roll over because you show up with a sign in your hand. These people actually rub their hands together in glee whenever they bump off a sovereign leader. Good luck with that.
            Was the use of the work idiot necessary? I disagree with your position, but I wouldn’t call you idiot because you disagree with me.

          • backwardsevolution
            November 9, 2017 at 01:30

            Annie – sorry, Annie. I didn’t mean you were an idiot. I don’t word things correctly sometimes.

          • Annie
            November 9, 2017 at 02:50

            Okay, I forgive you.

        • anon
          November 9, 2017 at 09:05

          I certainly understand the preference for nonviolent action but after many years of observation and reading I know that it will not happen here. I have not seen any plausible case for nonviolent overthrow of a ruthless, lying, highly organized tyranny that has no principles whatsoever. MLK would have gained no attention whatsoever without the 1960s race riots in major cities.

          The collapse of the USSR without much violence was not comparable so far as I know. The revolution in India involved major violence, but also was not comparable so far as I know.

          If you have a case for applying nonviolence principles in a practical manner to the US it should certainly be made. I have suggested minimizing violence by infiltration of police, national guard, and armed forces to deny enforcement to oligarchy. But I have not heard of a case where that worked without any moral principle at all in government, nor without major violence happening anyway. If it doesn’t work, why would anyone suggest it?

          The US has killed over six million since WWII for no good cause whatsoever, several times the number likely to die in a revolution. So it is more nonviolent to advocate any means necessary to stop this.

  43. D.H. Fabian
    November 8, 2017 at 17:45

    We tend to overlook some basic points. In the 2016 election, both candidates were opposed by much of their own bases, for some of the same reasons. Roughly half of all voters rejected both — a point that demands some thought. They voted third party or withheld their votes. Of those who didn’t vote, few were just “too lazy” to bother. They knew that only the D or the R would win, and concluded that this time, there was no “lesser of the evils.”

    Most voting choices come down to economic issues. The Dem voting base had long consisted of the poor and middle class, for the common good. This base was split wide apart in the 1990s by the Clinton administration, and the Obama years only confirmed that this split is permanent. As hard as many try to ignore it, this fact isn’t going to go away.

  44. Joe Tedesky
    November 8, 2017 at 17:43

    I picture in the very near future as it dawns on many an American, that the empire is no more, that the debate will be centered around who caused the decline, Obama or Trump. I will leave you too decide which one it was, if either is to be blamed for America’s fall.

    I think it was FG Sanford who wrote a comment to how Trump will accomplish nothing, and that the Dem’s if smart enough then they will rally in 2020 with a liberal agenda. I hope I’m not quoting my dear comment board friend wrong, but I seem to remember him saying this in his comment. So, if we take FG’s prediction to heart, then the Dem’s may possibly become the party we have all waited for. I must add that seeing Tom Perez do a victory lap this morning over the Democrat win yesterday, didn’t give way to my having too much hope that the Donkey’s will get it right. Let’s hope the Gabbard’s, and the Sander’s type politicians rise to the top, and if they do, that they will stay the course and not give in to the mighty lobbyist who get what they want for the money they donate.

    • D.H. Fabian
      November 8, 2017 at 17:52

      Many figured this out years ago. The turning point was the “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s. This was when the country turned to the right, corporate and financial deregulation began, the first steps were taken to dismantle the “safety net,” and we began seeing the mass upward redistribution of the country’s wealth.That revolution has been ongoing.

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 8, 2017 at 23:07

        Having lived through those Reagan years I whole heartedly agree. I witnessed many a laid off steel worker go unemployed long enough until finally if lucky they were to find a replacement job at a third the pay. Like many others in this country I watched too many small spin off businesses close their doors due to plant closings.

        What did slide through the Reagan years, got crushed when Bill Clinton sided heavily with the Trade Agreement crowd. George W Bush who received a ton of backing from the Steel Workers in 2000, came back to the Irvin Works for a BBQ and a thank you for your vote speech, then left to do nothing to put protective tariffs in place.

        The dismantling of America’s once great manufacturing infrastructure was forfeited to pound the Union Worker down too dust, and dust is what is left of the once proud AFL/CIO and it’s affiliates. Along with this destruction of American labor America also went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest indebted nation ever to be found on the face of this planet. Add in the wasted money on war and security, and there you have it, a nation surviving upon its own fumes. It’s just a matter of time, and I don’t think in this day and age of instant gratification that the anxious doomsday buggers will have a much longer wait until it’s over.

      • Seer
        November 9, 2017 at 02:36

        No, the “turning point” was, well, if we’re talking US, AND, we’re discounting the creation of the Federal Reserve (which would put the date at 1913), 1971 (I think it’s 1971, that or 1970). When Nixon pulled plug on the gold-backed USD, which was increasingly more dependent on life support. Most people don’t understand what this meant. Simple, it meant that the US effectively declared itself bankrupt. Nixon’s impeachment circus was a big smokescreen covering this reality. Carter came in and experienced the first shock waves from that undeclared bankruptcy. When Reagan came in to office the smoke really started getting thick, no longer was a single smoke even sufficient to hide everyone’s eyes from what really had, and was continuing to unfold, no, it required a complete forest fire; hence, Reagan and the GOP set about lighting things on fire. They did not create the situation that required them to mask all that was going on. What created it? Growth. Perpetual growth. Nothing can grow forever. The demands of compounding growth could not find enough fuel to keep running. By the magic of the petro-dollar the USD was pegged as the world’s most trusted currency. Yeah, the very currency from a country that had effectively gone bankrupt, yet undeclared, was allowed to print at will! When one can create alternate value (removed from reality) then that which is used to measure it, the USD, can be seen as all powerful. BUT, the poor and hardworking peoples of the world who were increasingly stripped of REAL value/wealth (real commodities for IOUs which would never be paid) kept getting antsy. The “solution,” then, has to “educate” all these people via spreading “democracy.”

        I could got farther back in time and say that the instruction to “go forth and multiply” was the origins of our path to failure. Multiply for how long? It’s a finite planet. There’s a limit! Yet, our very economic systems are WHOLLY based on this false notion of perpetual growth. EVERY empire has collapsed because of the ever-increasing weight of trying to squeeze more growth out of other lands and peoples.

      • Putin Apologist
        November 9, 2017 at 02:39

        I think the “turning point” for the empire might have been August 15, 1971.

    • anon
      November 8, 2017 at 18:58

      I hope that “it dawns on many an American, that the empire is no more” but expect this to lead to more mad bullying of small countries by our demagogues. Both Rep and Dem insiders firmly believe in lies as the primary path to power, as do their corporate and zionist/Saudi sponsors, so likely the Dems will respond to 2016 results with a campaign of outright lies followed by complete betrayals as in the last three elections.

      It appears that you and FG are right that “Trump will accomplish nothing” so this would be a good opportunity for independent progressives. I predict that dumbed-down America will continue to do dumb things, buy more lies and be utterly betrayed by their rich masters, and that generations more will die in quiet despair, too cowardly to take the necessary direct action to attack their oppressors, the mass media and the rich. Gold has mastered the technologies of economic oppression and propaganda, and most people will not recover self-respect, courage, or principled living until they have no choice.

      History will date the beginning of US recovery from this tyranny of gold when militias and legions of suicide bombers begin attacking rich gated communities and mass media facilities, when infiltrated police, national guard, and army units refuse to enforce against uprisings and attacks. Not for 40-80 years.

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 8, 2017 at 23:57

        I think that using the sad MSM coverage of William Binney is a barometer of where most of the problem lies. Without a responsible purely informative based media it is close to impossible to get out the word, other than the official narratives we are always hearing. Like in Binney’s case, why portray this man as anything other than what his past notable credentials are, and to at least give him that much respect, and relevance which he has rightfully earned? No, this discrediting slight of hand by CNN commentators is by no means an accident by any script writers lack of the facts. This is ‘Operation Mockingbird’ fair and square.

        I think FG made a good point, but I also recall he made that comment with his full notation towards the obvious hidden hand of the donor class which is always looming somewhere within the background of our nation’s capital ready to trample down any real change. His comment to be fair wasn’t naive in anyway, and I won’t want to represent it otherwise. Although, it did make sense that with a floundering ‘Republican do nothing White House’ that the opportunity to push Progressive ideas would, or at least could be more receptive by the American populace.

        Once again with a MSM which helps to create America’s own kind of made for tv reality, nothing is safe by the use of using a persons simple common sense, or to even try equating anything Washington does by a reasonable process of connecting the dots. Yesterday’s wrong narrative, is only replaced by today’s wrong narrative, and tomorrow’s wrong narrative will suffice to quench the thirst of the masses who so partake of this corporate media’s Koop-Aid. Joseph Goebbels would be jealous.

        I’m not sure what exactly you are talking about 40-80 years and people attacking gated communities, but I would suggest that instead getting the people inspired by the likes of Martin Luther King and Ghandi, but not ever to consider violent uprising. I realize there are those talking about this type of revolt, but I must warn anyone contemplating this kind of move against it, because the early birds to this folly of revolution will surely be the pioneering martyr’s of tomorrow’s revolutionary. Before you go all Che & Fidel try going towards a lot of MLK & Mahatma. If the fabric is good, then don’t burn it just wash it. Joe

      • Seer
        November 9, 2017 at 02:45

        anon, no, the empire still exists. What is “no more” is the notion/vision of a future that casts well beyond the horizon.

        I highly recommend finding (it’s available out on the Internet) Sir John Glubb’s The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. The patterns/phases of empire are very well documented. Glubb, however, failed to understand what the real driver was for collapse (he clearly noted what was NOT), and that’s that of the need for perpetual growth (armies and warfare increase because they are needed to obtain the elements of growth from other peoples/lands; eventually the energy required to sustain this ever-increasing outward push becomes too much; less and less “return” to the common person means the start of economic contraction, which is then a downward spiral).

    • November 9, 2017 at 04:30

      Joe, don’t hold your breath on the Dem’s getting their act together. They also haven’t learned ,as Mr. parry alludes to. The DNC and old longtime pols in the Democratic (?) party are still on the Corporatist track. They want nothing to do with the progressives. They screwed the California movement for single payer health insurance earlier in the year by purposely appointing a person to squash it. Really…check that out.

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 9, 2017 at 08:38

        “Calls for a sea change in the state’s healthcare system have proved remarkably durable, even after Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon shelved a measure in June that would have made the state responsible for paying all of its residents’ medical costs.

        A recently filed ballot initiative, budding campaigns against sitting lawmakers — including a recall effort against Rendon — and new plans for legislators to wrestle with how to achieve universal healthcare have taken shape in recent weeks, and the conversation is poised to take on national heft as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) prepares to introduce a “Medicare for all” measure in the fall.”

        Is this what your talking about?

    • November 9, 2017 at 07:00


      The illusions continue. Liberal-progressives with the best of
      intentions hope (it is a frantic and desperate hope) that some
      savior will appear to rescue them and the nation.

      Gabriel Kolko commented on this many years ago with prescience
      in the epilogue to his book THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN
      POLICY. The epilogue was titled “Reason and Radicalism.”.

      How hard we all wish that the raw power of the lobbies for
      the defense industry, for the Israeli lobby, for the banking and
      finance sector would magically melt away. I see no “melting”
      in sight. At least not before the Arctic has become beaches
      with tourist hotels! (Of course, who could afford such

      Even Bob Parry mysteriously hangs on to this grip on
      the impossible praying that the Democratic Party will
      change and all will be well. I seriously don’t
      believe Parry believes this in his heart of hearts at all.

      For so many who read and comment in these spaces
      I urge that we concentrate instead on what IS and
      less on HOW TO GET TO PARADISE.

      —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 9, 2017 at 08:47

        Peter good to see you. I’m also starting to believe that the best party to belong to is the ‘Nothing Party’. By being independent the voter forces both parties to work towards getting the independents vote. Although in states like Pennsylvania an independent can’t vote in the primaries unless a independent is on the primary ballot. So as you well know Peter this would leave you without input into the selection process of picking a general election candidate. Not good, but still with enough of independents out there it makes the candidates work a little harder to gain that loose voter. What’s missing is creditable and reliability honest candidates, and with that choice to choose from we all lose. Joe

        • Peter Loeb
          November 9, 2017 at 10:24

          Thanks Joe,

          I am already enrolled as an “Independent” here (which is called
          “unenrolled” in MA). I am not entitled to vote in a party
          primary but can vote for any candidate in either party
          at the final election.

          Full disclosure: In 20016: i voted GREEN. I still follow
          many who did so but strongly disapprove of Dr.
          Stein’s leadership which might have been better suited
          to a run for high school Student Council president.

          The following essay in today’s Counterpoint might
          interest you and others:

          —–Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

        • Skip Scott
          November 9, 2017 at 14:41


          Independents in Arizona are disenfranchised in the primaries as well. What I do is keep an eye out for a peace candidate, be it Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or whoever, and re-register if necessary to vote for that candidate in the primaries. Of course they never get the nod, so then I usually vote 3rd party in the General election. I’ve switched parties 3 or 4 times over the years to be able to do this.

          I’m hopeful that, if we make it to 2020, the time is right for the Green Party to field a true populist/ peace candidate and get the 15 pct. to make the debates. After Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary, I think the people are ready for real change if we can just get the right person to run. They would have to be popular (famous) enough already that the MSM couldn’t ignore them.
          I really see this as our only hope.

          • Joe Tedesky
            November 9, 2017 at 22:14

            Skip what Debbie Wazerman Schultz, the Podesta Brothers, and Hillary Clinton did during the Democrates 2016 primary, is a crime, and they should all be prosecuted for illegally tampering with the democratic process. Although I won’t hold my breath waiting for justice to be served.

            Skip your positive outlook made me think of the saying, hope springs eternal. I must say by the sounds of it that you Skip are a constant fighter, and one who believes that change may come through perseverance, and that my friend is a healthy outlook.

            Always good to hear from you Skip, stay safe. Joe

      • November 9, 2017 at 17:58

        I directed a doc on the Media (Orwell Rolls In His Grave 2004) and was struck by the entrenched information control. Subsequently, since 2006,I have followed, filmed and examined aging research, and speculated on it’s implications. I discovered a G B Shaw play called Back To Methuselah – where in Shaw posits that man must live too 300 years, To paraphrase, because human nature its tied to lifespan (and with it the short sighted status quo) – change lifespan and you would change political behavior – thus spoke Shaw 100 years ago. I am a progressive, Bernie screened Orwell …around Vermont – BUT, I have found
        few progressives that have connected to this idea. In my estimation – the ongoing, striking breakthroughs in biology, augmented
        by the computer revolution, will make this possible within 10 to 15 years I think we may have the ability to do an end run around this stupidity. I am hopeful.

  45. evelync
    November 8, 2017 at 17:16

    Yes, this is a nice summary of the failings of both parties to serve the vast majority of Americans.
    On a side note:
    RE: “But today’s Democrats instead chose to blame their plight largely on Russia and its alleged “meddling” in U.S. politics….”

    It was a big surprise yesterday when CNN mentioned that retired CIA officer William Binney’s view that the release of the Clinton damning emails was likely not by way of a hack but more likely an insider leak. They did not interview Binney or offer a clip and they noted that his opinion is considered “conspiracy theory” and countered it with quotes from Pompeo.

    On the other hand it was shocking that CNN opened this door to the possibility that the “RUSSIA DID IT” narrative was not accepted by 100% of the intelligence community.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 8, 2017 at 17:50

      What unnerves me about the William Binney coverage, is how the MSM insist upon calling him a ‘conspiracy theorist’. I mean come on down, this man is a whistleblower, but a true patriot for what all he has uncovered. Here is a man who should be in charge of the NSA, being critiqued by the likes of lying James Clapper. Wow, how upside down can our nation continue to get?

      • evelync
        November 8, 2017 at 18:55

        Yes indeed, Joe. And It enraged me. However after a while I took comfort thinking about comments here on CN pointing out that whoever challenges the Clinton narrative is labeled a conspiracy theorist.
        And that “label” I think, hope, is wearing thin as the Clinton machine comes under fire over revelations of her wrong doing and it becomes harder and harder for her apologists.
        Yesterday I was offended and enraged by CNN’s unfair, bizarre CT label of Binney’s expert observations. I’m hoping that CNN comes under pressure for Binney to be interviewed on the air to give him the chance to explain his expert, professional well informed analysis.

        • Joe Tedesky
          November 8, 2017 at 22:50

          Well evelync I’m not so sure of what the rest of America sees in this MSM belittling of William Binney, but I see it as a MSM who does everything in it’s broadcasting power to discredit any objective critique it is that isn’t their official narrative to be used. This in and of itself should prove to the curious viewers of how slanted, and bias, this corporate owned MSM really is. My guest is more, and more, Americans are wising up, and that’s why all this fuss is being made about ‘fake news’ and ‘Russian interverence’ as it comes into play.

          Here is a little something by Gordon Duff which lays claim to Trump’s being blackmailed. In true Gordon Duff style Duff slams it in the end….is it true, that’s for the reader to decide, before it’s too late.

          I’ll post link separate…..see below.

          • evelync
            November 9, 2017 at 11:17

            Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.

            RE: “but I see it as a MSM who does everything in it’s broadcasting power to discredit any objective critique it is that isn’t their official narrative to be used.”

            Yes, for example, Rachel Maddow – my husband refers to her as Rachel Madcow or simply The Madcow and my “womanly defense system” does not go to her rescue, for she is NOT an honest journalist – anyways, she was far far worse than anything I saw on CNN as she became totally enraged by the implication by Binney that “something is rotten in Denmark” concerning the narrative of a Russian hack. The Madcow viciously attacked the 30 year veteran of our intelligence services turned courageous whistle blower and she tried her best to discredit him – pointing out he had been interviewed on Russia Today – oh horrors! – and by innuendo she dismissed him as a CT crackpot.

            I saw Ms Madcow pull an outrageous propaganda stunt against Bernie in what looked to me like a planned set up with candidate Clinton during the primary. She’s a shameless shill but apparently brings in the dough for whipping her like minded audience into a frenzy. It seems that there’s a place in the brain – maybe it’s the pleasure center or perhaps its the reptilian center, lol – that lights up when the person is ideologically committed to a particular narrative.
            So it’s way out of the control of honest examination,reason and analysis. I’ve heard about this but haven’t read about it.

            And, Yes!, we do have a privileged class, including people who work at many of our institutions, including the MSM, even the IVY League universities which get lots of bucks from huge companies and its in the financial interests of these individuals to believe the narrative that ultimately serves those at the very top. It’s hard to deny.

            Rachel is unique in that – pardon my french – but she has a hard on for Hillary and the Hillary narrative and she has become quite a shill for that narrative – she’s truly lost her mind and yet she’s the star of MSNBC.
            Those people are patting each other on the back every night for the slant they put on “news”.
            She was outraged last night by the “audacity” of Binney to suggest such a thing.
            She did no homework. She did not know (or acknowledge) that Binney had worked for 30 years in the intelligence services, is a whistleblower dedicated to the public interest and also, professionally, very knowledgeable about the subject at hand having designed an electronic intelligence gathering system for the government as I understand it.

          • Joe Tedesky
            November 9, 2017 at 11:48

            I recall when back in 2013 when Bill Maher interviewed William Binney, as at that time Binney was all the positive rave for his exposing the huge listening big brother ear. Only now the limousine liberals need to continue their filthy rant over this Russia-Gate bull, and with that so goes the news, and William Binney with it.

            Tell your husband how he started something, because after reading your comment evelync I’m going to always refer to Rachel as Madcow. Joe

          • Dave P.
            November 9, 2017 at 12:52

            Joe, thanks for the post below. Yes I read the article ” Trump and Russia” in NEO. When will the people come to realization that this country is completely owned and controlled by the Zionists and their minions – Finance, Media, Defense Policy, Foreign Policy . . . and they control their minds too.? That documentary ” Occupation of American Mind” by University of Massachusetts professor was in the comments a few days ago – the title says it all.

            Russia was mercilessly looted by these Zionists during the 1990’s and they are blaming the Russians now for this money laundering. They kind of control the Western Europe too. What can Russians do? There are still lot of them – Zionists and their minions – left there in Russia. The Russians are trying their best to save whatever they can from their clutches with this State Capitalism or whatever. As the Whole World out there knows it that the reason for this vicious campaign against Russia and Putin is that they are resisting their control and the wholesale looting they want to do in Russia again by making them their economic colony.

          • Virginia
            November 9, 2017 at 14:33

            Both Binney and Donna Brazille were belittled and attacked vehemently by TV commentators.

          • Joe Tedesky
            November 9, 2017 at 21:57

            Dave you are among the fortunate in America to realize what America is dealing with when dealing with the Zionist of Israel. You may already know this, but author Phil Butler who posts his articles on NEO does a great job of exposing the Russian Zionist Oligarchy.

            Virginia you are right, that the established MSM is playing havoc with Binney & Brazille’s reputations. I can tell you this, I’m planning on reading Donna Brazille’s book, and I’m already defending William Binney’s credentials to the best of my ability. So yeah Virginia our corporate media is evil.

      • Adrian Engler
        November 9, 2017 at 06:41

        The absurd thing is that, if the term “conspiracy theory” should serve some purpose, at all, the Russiagate story fits it very well – there are allegations about a vast conspiracy involving another country that are based on hardly any supporting facts, let alone real evidence.
        When not those who talk about that alleged Russian conspiracy theory all the time without providing evidence are called “conspiracy theorists”, but those who question this, this is really a shocking Orwellian distortion, but it seems that many people accept this.

        • Joe Tedesky
          November 9, 2017 at 08:29

          “Your inside is out and your outside is in
          Your outside is in and your inside is out
          So come on (Ho) come on (Ho)
          Come on is such a joy
          Come on is such a joy
          Come on let’s make it easy
          Come on let’s make it easy
          Make it easy (Hoo) make it easy (Hoo)
          Everybody’s got something to hide except for me and my monkey”

          I thought this lyric may fit…… Joe

          • Skip Scott
            November 9, 2017 at 08:50

            Good one Joe! As for the Binney mention on CNN, I doubt they will ever interview him. He makes too much sense. It’s just about as likely they’d interview Putin. If they did, they’d have to do a major cut and paste job, like PBS did with the Jill Stein interview. In the end, it’s much easier to just slander Binney and call him a “Conspiracy Theorist”, when he’s probably the smartest guy to ever work for the NSA.

          • Joe Tedesky
            November 9, 2017 at 09:50

            Binney is getting the full blown treatment. I saw CNN & Maddow broadcasting loud and clear of how Binney is all the rage on RT & InfoWars, and then I knew without a doubt too what the coverage of Binney is all about. What a tragic display of how bad corporate run news is, and even sadder that possibly most Americans just don’t get it. Oh but to stay so uninformed!

            Good to get your input Skip. Joe

        • Herman
          November 11, 2017 at 19:46

          Adrian, wonderful synopsis.

      • rosemerry
        November 9, 2017 at 16:30

        I always enjoy James Corbett’s five minute video “9/11, a conspiracy theory” showing the official story. Free online!!

      • Piotr Berman
        November 10, 2017 at 14:27

        This is quite ironic, because “conspiracy theorists” doubt the scenario of an enormous Russian conspiracy.

    • Anonymot
      November 8, 2017 at 18:46

      CNN may have enlarged the public that is aware that the Clintonites lied when they used the term “the intelligence community” and such when anyone reading an alternative news source such as this one has been aware that only a small part of the real “intelligence” agencies actually agreed with that lie.

    • evelync
      November 8, 2017 at 21:34

      Tonight CNN ran a statement along the bottom of the TV screen that Donald Trump asked Pompeo to talk with William Binney. Binney, apparently, confirmed for CNN that he spent about an hour talking with Pompeo on October 24th.
      CNN added that Pompeo still supports the Russia narrative. And CNN again disparaged the Binney leak version as CT.

      Shame on them for failing to interview Binney.

    • Leslie F
      November 8, 2017 at 23:46

      Too raise the issue only to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory does not help. They are just inoculating themselves, the Democrats and the deep state against the obvious logic of his position.

      • Skip Scott
        November 9, 2017 at 08:53

        The thing is, even just by mentioning his name, some people will look into his argument for the DNC releases being a leak and not a hack, and they will see the obvious truth. It’s a small glimmer of hope, but at least it’s a glimmer.

        • evelync
          November 9, 2017 at 11:26

          I’m hoping this as well, Skip Scott!!!!!

          “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

          (I’ll place the link that investigates the authorship in the next comment)

  46. mike k
    November 8, 2017 at 16:30

    A nice summary of the Trump presidency so far, but it left out the promises to mend fences with Russia, and close some military bases abroad. College grad level middle class Americans who voted for him largely on the basis of those promises, were greatly disappointed by his opposite moves leading the nation towards more war, not less.

Comments are closed.