Clever Strategy vs Desperate Tactics: Hillary Clinton allows Donald Trump to survive the Second Presidential Debate

72
2

unnamed-1

THE SECOND US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE demonstrated brilliantly the difference between strategy and tactics. Hillary Clinton’s performance was all about the political needs of the next 30 days. Donald Trump was fighting for his life.

By declining numerous opportunities to take the “kill shot” against her Republican opponent, Clinton ensured that Trump emerged from the debate with just enough credit to keep his candidacy alive. Had she comprehensively trounced Trump, the panic in the Republican camp would only have gotten worse. The calls for Trump’s replacement would have become deafening, and it’s just possible that the Donald’s already fractured ego would have disintegrated completely.

This is the last thing the Clinton Campaign wants. Their strategic objective is to keep Trump in the race. They are confident that he has already done more than enough to lose the presidency. What they are hoping for now is that in the remaining 30 days of the campaign Trump will do enough to deliver the Senate – and maybe even the House of Representatives – to the Democratic Party.

Considerations of strategy were nowhere near the top of Trump’s mind. His campaign was bleeding copiously and unless he staunched the blood-flow it would very soon be dead. His only tactical option was to hurl everything he had at Clinton and hope that the sheer intensity of his assault would break him out of the rapidly tightening cordon of condemnation strangling his bid for the White House.

In this he was reasonably successful. His combative performance, aimed directly at his electoral base, was just enough to hold these white, male, working-class voters in place. It was also enough to remind even his most vociferous Republican detractors of how he got to be their party’s nominee. On the issue of Clinton’s insider status, and especially on the vexed question of her deleted e-mails, Trump’s gloves definitely connected with Hillary’s jaw.

But he did not knock her out. On the contrary, in the course of delivering his wild rhetorical blows, Trump unwittingly extended the Clinton Campaign’s strategic advantage. His threat to use the powers of the presidency to put Clinton “in jail” is without precedent in US political history, recalling the very worst excesses of the Nixon White House. The Democrats will undoubtedly offer up Trump’s threat as further proof of his utter unfitness for America’s highest office.

His repudiation of his vice-presidential running-mate’s, Mike Pence’s, statements about Syria will also rebound to the Democratic Party’s advantage. Trump’s eagerness to work with the Russians (ostensibly to “defeat Isis”) reinforces the growing concern among American voters that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, will stop at nothing (not even hacking into the Democratic Party’s and Clinton’s confidential computer files) to prevent “Hawkish Hillary” from becoming President of the United States.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Between now and 8 November, Clinton’s campaign team will use Trump’s words to consolidate their candidate’s gains among disillusioned Republican and independent voters in the dozen or so “swing states” she must win to secure the 270 votes needed in the Electoral College. The Democratic Party’s strategic symphony, portraying Trump as a “clear and present danger” to the constitutional liberties of the American people, will build relentlessly to a crushing crescendo.

With CNN’s scientific poll of debate-watcher’s declaring Clinton the winner of the second presidential face-off by a margin of 23 percentage points (Clinton: 57 percent – Trump: 34 percent) Hillary’s victory march just got a whole lot louder.

72 COMMENTS

  1. 27 countries destroyed by Hilary Clinton:

    Abkhazia

    Before Hillary: In 2009, more and more nations began recognizing the independence of this nation that broke away from Georgia and successfully repelled a U.S.-supported Georgian invasion in 2008.
    After Hillary: Clinton pressured Vanuatu and Tuvalu to break off diplomatic relations with Abkhazia in 2011. The State Department pressured the governments of India, Germany, and Spain to refuse to recognize the validity of Abkhazian passports and, in violation of the US-UN Treaty, refused to permit Abkhazian diplomats to visit UN headquarters in New York. The Clinton State Department also threatened San Marino, Belarus, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Somalia, Uzbekistan, and Peru with recriminations if they recognized Abkhazia. Georgia was connected to Clinton through the representation of Georgia in Washington the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and current campaign chairman John Podesta.

    Argentina

    Before Hillary: Under President Nestor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s economy improved and the working class and students prospered.
    After Hillary: After former president Nestor Kirchner’s sudden death in 2010, the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires became a nexus for anti-Kirchner activities, including the fomenting of political and labor protests against the government. Meanwhile, Clinton pressed Argentina hard on its debt obligations to the IMF, also crippling the economy.

    Bolivia

    Before Hillary: Bolivia’s progressive president Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous Aymara leader, provided government support to the country’s coca farmers and miners. Morales also committed his government to environmental protection. He kept his country out of the Free Trade Area of the Americas and helped start the Peoples’ Trade Agreement with Venezuela and Cuba.
    After Hillary: Clinton permitted the U.S. embassy in La Paz to stir up separatist revolts in four mostly European-descent Bolivian provinces, as well as foment labor strikes among miners and other workers in the same model used in Venezuela.

    Brazil

    Before Hillary: Brazil’s progressive presidents, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, ushered in a new era for the country, with workers’ and students; rights at forefront and environmental protection and economic development for the poor major priorities.
    After Hillary: Clinton’s authorization of massive electronic spying from US embassy in Brasilia and consulate general in Rio de Janeiro resulted in a “constitutional coup” against Rousseff and the Workers’ Party government, ushering in a right-wing, CIA-supported corrupt government………

    Yemen

    Before Hillary: Yemen was a largely secular state that was transforming into a federation where the rights of South Yemen and the Zaidi Houthis of north Yemen were being recognized.
    After Hillary: Clinton’s “Arab Spring” of 2011 and the fall of Abdullah Saleh from power saw Yemen become a failed state. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State gained control over several areas of North and South Yemen. The fall of Saleh permitted Saudi Arabia to conduct a genocidal war in the country with Mrs. Clinton’s full support.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/share-chart-countries-destroyed-hillary/ri16630

    • OH yes but Trump used naughty words,that’s enough to disqualify him,Clinton can do what she likes because shes a “woman”
      The world will be ruined (the parts she hasn’t already ruined) by the Witch of Washington.The MSM ,Justice dept and FBI,all in the tank for the witch,
      covering up and hiding her secrets and lies.
      The Big Money is behind Clinton because she will do as shes told (for a price) so the status quo will be maintained and the carnage and corruption will continue
      Trump won the debate ,supporters of democrats are scared to face the truth.

    • Seemed interesting, so I looked up your first accusation and found this:

      …The status of Abkhazia is a central issue of the Georgian–Abkhazian conflict and Georgia–Russia relations. The region enjoyed autonomy within Soviet Georgia at the time when the Soviet Union began to disintegrate in the late 1980s. Simmering ethnic tensions between the Abkhaz—the region’s “titular ethnicity”—and Georgians—the largest single ethnic group at that time—culminated in the 1992–1993 War in Abkhazia which resulted in Georgia’s loss of control of most of Abkhazia, the de facto independence of Abkhazia, and the mass exodus and ethnic cleansing of Georgians from Abkhazia. Despite the 1994 ceasefire agreement and years of negotiations, the dispute remained unresolved. The long-term presence of a United Nations Observer Mission and a Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peacekeeping force failed to prevent the flare-up of violence on several occasions. In August 2008, Abkhaz forces fought against Georgia during the Russo-Georgian War, which led to the formal recognition of Abkhazia by Russia, the annulment of the 1994 ceasefire agreement, and the termination of the UN mission. On 28 August 2008, the Parliament of Georgia declared Abkhazia a Russian-occupied territory, a stance recognised by the vast majority of the international community.

      Your contention appears a bit disputable but what is clear is who has an interest in recognizing the Sovereign State of Abkhazia. Hurrah for Wikileaks.

      No mention of Hillary, though. Must be a CIA conspiracy of silence.

      I’m not saying you are talking through your hat, AFKTT, but your Nom-de-Guerre does suggest you may be prone to run after a few dodgy theories.

      Have you considered that Billy Bush might have been a Dem plant? Did you notice, like me that none of his family supported the Donald, even though he is very tall and has a hot wife and a hot daughter? I smell a Blue Rat.

      And you can bet that the Mainstream Media will remain silent!

      • Actually, Fatty, do I have to call you Fatty? I think that Hillary Clinton might just be the best President the Left have ever had. (Not a very high bar, I will admit).

        The only risk is that the Right might keep the Senate and the House of Representatives and the gridlock continue.

        I would be unhappy, but am prepared to be proven wrong, shall we agree to wait and see.

        • You can call me whatever you like!

          My calling Clinton a disgrace is more about her past than anything else – and also to point out that she is better than Trump (can’t believe people take him seriously).

          I do agree with you that Clinton will be one the best POTUS’ ever – much of this has to do with the Bernie campaign.

          Clinton is running under a platform that combined Sander’s and her policies. Clinton is going to raise the minimum wage to $15, which is almost double the federal minimum wage at the moment (if only Labour NZ did that!). Her college debt plan looks pretty good too.

          And like you say, it’ll all depend on whether or not she can push it through the senate and house.

          So yeah, I agree with you, and my comment was more a jibe at her past and the Trumpeters, than anything else

        • We cant afford to wait and see NICK SMITH SORY, as Hillary has her mission to start that next Global World war her paymasters Koch bros, Kissinger, Rothchild’s are instructing her to get started soon, along with all her BILDERBERG mates who are now counting on her to instigate NICK.

          Better instruct your grandchildren to immigrate to a “neutral Country” who wont join this next war as “Planet Key” that you belong to, will eagerly do mate.

          • Well, Cleangreen, I guess all we can do is go on doing what we are – watching from the side lines. So we will have to wait, like it or lump it.

            (Do you really imagine Nick Smith is writing in the Daily Blog, DOG? (That’s Millennial for Delusions of Grandeur, or should be). SORY to disillusion you, but I’m just another supporter of the Left, like you (apart from your opinion face-lift which seems to have dragged your views 180 degrees and pinned them there to the point that Trump, Bannon and the Alt-right appear more palatable than a candidate espousing the positions we all had on the Left up until this election).

            If Hillary and her Koch paymasters start the next World War, I will just have to say “whoops, my bad,” from under my kitchen table as the Nuclear GM Canola bombs rain down -unless of course you mean War on Want, or something, in which case, good luck to her and her Bilderberg cronies) but if she manages to put in place even the minor advances Fatty lists above without plunging the world into a Neoliberal firestorm, I hope you will be play nice and admit that your sound and fury was a tad misplaced.

    • Two great crimes she has committed. Jail? The noose is too good for her!
      Let us name them just as we pant to name “Extremist Islamic Terror”, or whatever the battle cry is.

      (A). Those damn emails. Do you know that she emailed two – not one but two – emails which were classified. They were so classified that they were marked with a “C” after a couple of names of nominees for a job. (Just like further down this posting. I fully expect that Hillary will be wanting to forward this post. Will the woman stop at nothing). That’s is for the emails.

      (B). SHE LIED TO GOLD STAR PARENTS. Yup that’s what she did. She told them, according to some of them (disputed by others) that the attack on the temporary consulate in Benghazi was because of a Video. Exactly, I was shocked too, not an attack by terrorists. Outrageous. Well, outrageous until you reflect that the attack might have been by insurgents, if you grant that Libya at the time had a government, but a terrorist is by definition an attack on part of a population to terrorize the rest. So whatever the motivation of the attackers (many involved later conceded that the controversy over the Video was part of the facilitating context), they do not qualify as terrorists.*

      Those were the two Great Crimes committed by Clinton.

      Let us add two others: (C) Having a private server for emails.
      The main reason for the cacophony of fury by Republicans over that was purely strategic. They hoped that if they were able to trawl through all those emails there had to be something to pin on “Crooked Hillary”.

      (D) The Clinton Foundation. Pay For Play. Now there is probably little doubt that the Clintons got unusual mileage out of giving speeches or large contributions to the foundation from international players. However, this only matters if either the payers got some unusual advantage against the interests of the US. Alternatively, if the Clintons enriched themselves out of the coffers of the Foundation. Neither happened in this case.

      Contributors get access. Big deal. There is no such thing as an indiscreet question, they say, just an indiscreet answer. If Hillary Clinton did her job, that is the end of it.

      So there you have the great Crime-lady.

      The ludicrous moral equivalency invoked by the Republican apologists is the true crime.

      Hillary Clinton may prove to have feet of clay, that remains to be established, but those of you who parrot out things like Steve Rowe’s Brain Burp, are the ones who should be ashamed of their own intellectual bankruptcy.

      * There is much more to know about the background of that video. Everything about it is decidedly fishy. It seems it was a Mossad plant, involving a non-film maker (now in US clink) overdubbed insults to Mohammed and a YouTube link forwarded to a Moslem shock-jock (yes, there are some) in Egypt, designed to provoke anger in Moslem countries against the US in the hope of exciting a US backlash to force Obama to support Israel’s position that an attack should be launched against Iran. Too complex to canvas here, but it would make a good film, probably a farce.

      • Nick;

        “Alternatively, if the Clintons enriched themselves out of the coffers of the Foundation. Neither happened in this case.”

        This statement here, alone, shows you haven’t a clue on what you are
        talking about.

        Another paid for their time on these pages?

        Cheers.

            • That doesn’t cover it at all.

              Nick clearly asked for evidence showing the “Clintons enriched themselves out of the coffers of the Foundation.”

              Nothing in that link shows the Clintons enriched themselves out of the coffers of the foundation. It does show where funds for the foundation came from (no surprises). It shows that the Clintons make millions from speeches (again, no surprise – even George W makes millions from speeches).

              I’ve got little respect for philanthropy. Charity organisations are inherently inefficient.

              But you haven’t shown how the Clintons enriched themselves out of the coffers of the Foundation

              Try again

                • I’m always busy, but yesterday had a chance to read through the comments here more thoroughly…and that’s when I responded here. Is that not OK?

                  I’m not sure what you think that link shows, but it is about one of Clinton’s Puper PACs, not the Clinton Foundation.

                  I’ve been looking for evidence that the Clintons enriched themselves out of the coffers of the Foundation because I’ve heard this claim before, but I can’t find anything.

                  Are you aware that a Super PAC is not the Clinton Foundation? They’re not even close to being the same thing. The article you’ve linked is about a Super PAC that funds online trolls – this is irrelevant and not surprising at all. This has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.

                  I’d suggest you google the Clinton Foundation if you don’t know what it is. And google Super PAC.

                  If you have some evidence that the Clinton’s have gotten their wealth via the Clinton Foundation (as you claim) then post it. But don’t go posting stories about Super PACS. They’re a different topic.

    • I work in research; not polling, but in terms of panel selection, this stuff interests me. According to CNN:

      “Interviews with 521 registered voters who watched the
      presidential debate conducted by telephone (landline and cell)
      by ORC International on September 26, 2016. The margin of
      sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or
      minus 4.5 percentage points.
      Survey respondents were first interviewed as part of a random
      national sample conducted September 23-25, 2016. In those
      interviews, respondents indicated they planned to watch
      tonight’s debate and were willing to be re-interviewed after
      the debate.
      26% of the respondents who participated in tonight’s survey
      identified themselves as Republicans, 41% identified
      themselves as Democrats, and 33% identified themselves as
      Independents.”

      THAT is CNN’s ‘scientific poll’? If the results of each sample were weighted according to the population levels of registered voters (i.e. % of voters registered as gops/dems/indies), then it would be ok, but these breakdowns off a sample of 541 participants does not make for usable insights.

      The methodology on that poll confirms:

      “Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling
      error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce
      crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with
      a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with “NA”.”

      A ‘sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less’? It’s junk, especially when the best they get is +/- 4.5% on their total – try and use the crosstabs for just male or female voters, or for the published age ranges, and it becomes close to worthless. You’d need a sample twice this size to get a good poll for NZ. MRS (I think they might have a new name now) suggests a minimal sample of 850 for valid insights on NZ voters; this is a sample of 451 for valid insights on US voters? What. A. Fucking. Joke.

  2. Wow, thanks for the heads up Chris – interesting to note the CIAs Operation Mockingbird is still alive around the world.

    Have you even heard of wikileaks?

  3. What I love about this election is that even though Trump is an unpleasant louse – we can see who sides with the establishment. Anyone siding and batting for Hillary reveals their true affiliations. Very interesting indeed.

    • Not at all, Steve.

      I’d rather have a rational Wrong over an irrational Right any day.

      (Not that this is the issue here, it is largely the other way around, without unnecessarily canonising Clinton. Globalism is a rational position, it’s just a seriously flawed position without massive caveats).

      Look, I,m not saying with Alexander Pope -was it? – “whatever is is right in this best of all possible worlds” but I do believe that an iconoclastic attack on anything that could be called “The Establishment” (ie whatever is) is certain to hurt disproportionately those we are avowed to defend. We should try to box effectively, but we also have to box a bit smarter than this.

      You can change the mind of someone rational, maybe that is a place to start.

      Of course the Breitbart Alt-right plan is to pull down the whole thing then remake it in the image of the “Irredeemables”. If you agree with that vision then there is probably little point attempting rationality as a starting point.

    • If candidate A never tells the truth and candidate B never lies….

      Sounds like the beginning of a delightful brain-teaser, but

      Fact-checking journalist C will not appear balanced to Mum D or enthusiast R.

  4. Chris CNN is a trumpet for Clinton so switch to Fox you will get the opposite story there.

    Anyway Ted Turner doesn’t run CNN now the corporates do and they desperately want Clinton back in to get the TPPA past as Clinton was caught saying she wants all free trade no borders plan now so sorry Bernie she lied again!!!!!

    • Cleangreen, in public I will say that Blue Sky Thinking is what we expect from a President.

      In private my position is that you are so committed to your position that it is barely worth engaging.

      See? No problem. And the two positions can both be right, or wrong, with out being mutually contradictory.

  5. Yep, this about sums it up, I think, Hillary was tactically smart during the second debate, not going where Trump tried to move her, and sticking (mostly that is) to the gun of talking about what she thinks needs to be done re various issues that need to be addressed.

    I have already settled for the fact that Hillary Clinton will be the first female President of the US, whether this will be good, that is another question. It will in my view be the lesser of two evils, as Trump would be a serious risk for the whole planet and us all living on it.

  6. It ain’t going to be good either way.
    The debate is purely money making entertainment for the networks. …..and CNN polls…well, we saw Sanders high polling (against Hilliary) pulled from the networks very early on in the piece, so they can’t be trusted.
    Best of luck America – you’re going to need it.

  7. FOOL. Are we a USA COLONY?? that we should even care about this circus?

    You are a dummy to just parrot to us this b.s. which anyone can find for themselves on the b.s. Faux “news” anywhere and remain ignorant like you.

    Got nothing better to do with your time Chris??? Gimme a break!!!!

      • Yes, and I would argue the USA and UK influence us as much as our own political circus.

        I would’ve preferred to have had Sanders, Corbyn and Key as leaders of USA, UK & NZ…than have Clinton, May & Little.

        Ideological direction is more important than who has their hands on the controls in NZ. Little and NZ Labour will continue down this neoliberal dead-end until change occurs in USA and UK.

        For NZ Labour to change we need to see a left shift from USA and UK

    • I stand corrected;

      The 65% I quoted above included independents that were ‘likely’ to vote democrat.
      http://www.infowars.com/rigged-cnn-poll-claiming-hillary-won-the-debate-sampled-41-democrats-compared-to-26-republicans/

      http://www.infowars.com/poll-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate/
      Surely a reflection of the election result.

      But even more worrying for Hillary.
      http://www.infowars.com/hillary-panics-tells-supporters-privately-that-trump-
      has-dangerous-advantage/

      Cheers.

        • fatty;

          Can you not read and digest?

          In the first link is small print from CNN’s own website.

          The 2nd link relates to the first debate.
          Infowars had no poll but listed 30 results.

          So you are suggesting TIME and CNBC are untrustworthy too?

          TIME: Trump 58% Clinton 42% Votes cast: 409,743.

          CNBC: Trump 60% Clinton 40% Votes cast: 363,494.

          Breitbart: Trump 76% Clinton 24% Votes cast: 169,755.

          CNN: Trump 27% Clinton 62% Pre-selected voters 521.

          Quite obvious which one is rigged.

          You need to go to;
          https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/09/24/what-many-opponents-of-trump-seem-to-be-horribly-missing-in-the-latest-opinion-polls-from-america/
          60% down the page for my list of Alt media sites to get you up to
          speed.

          MSM now days is Spin,Deception,Lies,Propaganda and more Lies.!

          For your information,Infowars is now virtually MSM with the number
          of stories the rest are forced to pick up.

          Cheers.

          • Those ‘polls’ on those pages are click counters. Anyone can go on there and click away. Trump got more clicks…yay!

            Those ‘polls’ have no information on who voted and how many times they voted. Trump has a lot of twitter voters. Clinton has a ground game and a political machine behind her. You’re delusional if you’re taking those click-counters seriously.

            Even Krauthammer mocked those ‘polls’ on Fox News the other day.

            And anyway, the so called winner of the debate is irrelevant. The issue is how Trump and Clinton was perceived by potential swing voters in potential swing states.

            Try fivethirtyeight for a breakdown of where the swing states are at and how people in those states are going to vote. The election is pretty much over and Trump’s shit slinging is handing Clinton the election. Trump won’t get the swing states by reducing the election to a shit-slinging contest.

            Unless we see something big happen in the next month Trump has lost. And he’s broken the GOP – but it was already broken anyway.

            http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

  8. Chris;

    I am so disappointed in some of your articles lately.

    To think that in the latter stages of my working life I always used to eagerly go
    to your column on a Friday in the Dominion before I read anything else I begin
    to wonder.

    You are not silly Chris so why you continue to believe what MSM spurts out,
    especially in this day and age, is beyond me.

    Surely you know CNN supports the Democrat line as most of the others including
    Fox now with the recent coup.

    That being said,with the 1st debate, CNN was the ONLY one to give it to Hillary
    with a rigged poll. ie 65% were known Democrat supporters.

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/09/poll-won-presidential-debate/

    This is probably a little high, which would reflect it’s readers, but come tomorrow
    I think the others will probably reflect the same result as the first.

    Cheers.

    • Indeed – which is why I find it interesting who supports the establishment – it’s very revealing.

      I think this is the most interesting/important US election since JFK and maybe Jimmy Carter, in that it is the establishment (military industrial corporate information complex) vs “the people”.

      The people deep down know they are screwed but want a Brexit-like punch in the face to the establishment – The Republican Party are leaving Trump in droves because (unlike the usual rules) this time they can’t be sure that no matter what happens they win anyway…

      Maybe Trump will have an accident with a nail gun? But the next few weeks are going to be very interesting indeed…

      • Steve Rowe;

        Totally agree.
        Liked post’s above and the Barry Soper one a gem. What a hack he is.

        Seems the Republican Party elite came up with those tapes,edited of course out of context.
        Ryan pulling funds etc,the whole thing was planned.
        It shows up democrasy as the illusion it is. All controlled by same people.

        Same here. Caucus against Cunliffe. Goff votes for the TPPA.

        See reply to Fatty above and definitely listen to Dr Steve Pieczenik Phd
        link in reply to Chris below.

        Clinton’s a goner and you could be right. Something big might well happen.

        Cheers.

    • Oh Iain.
      Quoting Breitbart here? You high-step on your own outrage.

      Join us in the BS-of-our-choice club.

      But those of us going to Fox News in the hope of getting Fair and Balanced reporting, be warned. All is not as it should be.

      Half their, previously reliable, zealots now almost seem critical of The Donald. You might just have to restrict yourself to Hannity to be sure of getting the righteous story.

      • Nick;
        I have already said there has been a recent coup at Fox elsewhere and
        Hannity is the next to be purged.

        I was going to say to listen to Dr Steve Pieczenik Phd in a post to Chris
        below but it seems to be missing.
        Here it is;

        ATTENTION CHRIS TROTTER AND OTHERS.

        Dr Steve Pieczenik Phd is an author above reproach. See about/bio below.

        He is ex-Special Ops, ex-CIA, ex-CFR.

        I urge you to listen to his interview here. Start at 5mins at least to 20min mark.(15)
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWuM27Z1QI

        Here is also a list of top authors that are not Mainstream. Again above reproach.

        Top authors; Click website name for home.
        http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/michel-chossudovsky
        http://stevepieczenik.com/
        http://tarpley.net/
        http://journal-neo.org/author/william-engdahl/
        http://www.wnd.com/author/jcorsi/
        http://www.strategic-culture.org/authors/wayne-madsen.html
        http://stonecoldtruth.com/

        Important Geo-political site;
        http://www.voltairenet.org/en Thierry Meyssen from France.

        For your perusal. I am sure you will agree.

        Cheers.

          • fatty;

            I guess your point here is that somehow detracts from what
            this man has to say.

            Like Paul Craig Roberts, above, they either leave or get
            sacked because they object or speak out about whats going
            on.

            Look at their about/bio. Both very impressive.They all are.

            Decide for yourself by going there and checking them out.
            I would not put you crook. Dr Pieczenik IS the man.

            Cheers.

            • Yes, he seems very unreliable.
              I’m not sure what information he has to offer in relation to Trotter’s post.
              The polls show the election is all but over. Trump has crashed and burned. Clinton will win, and she could win by a massive margin as Trump implodes

                • Yes, very straight forward.

                  The more I look into Pieczenik, the more laughable he becomes. He’s unhinged and full of conspiracy theories.

                  And Clinton will win the election by a clear margin unless something massive happens. Trump has no path to victory based on the polling in the swing states. Not even close. No chance.

                  • fatty;

                    1. ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ doesn’t work anymore.
                    More and more people are beginning to realize most Conspiracies are true.

                    2. I note that the message you have repeated in conclusion of your last three major replies seems a pattern similar to that of MSM.

                    What they would have you believe
                    regardless of truth.

                    By the way. have you seen this?
                    https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55653

                    Cheers.

                    • 1 – I’d say more and more people are believing in conspiracy theories, but that doesn’t make them more true. People who subscribe to this nonsense fail to see that the problem is capitalism. Silly dot-connecting is pointless and a distraction from the real problem – capitalism. I’ve got no time for truthers such as Pieczenik. The powerful love these conspiracy theorists because they get people blaming the wrong things.

                      2 – I’m no Hillary supporter. She’s part of the problem…but if you think a corporate animal like Trump is the solution, then you’re out of answers. Trump is the establishment, more so than politicians. A basic understanding of capitalism would show you why this is true. I suggest starting with Marx.

                      MSM are tools of the powerful, but they’re far more closer to the truth than conspiracy theorists. Try Henry Giroux, Pilger, Chomsky etc.

                      As for my claim that Clinton will win, check out the polling on fivethirtyeight.com and you’ll see that Trump has almost no chance, and Clinton has won. Nate Silver is a statistician and his only aim is to predict the outcome – and he’s very good at it. I doubt he’s wrong this time. And yes, Hillary’s won through gaming the system.

                      Thanks for the link about astroturfing, but I wouldn’t apply astroturfing to Clinton. Astroturfing refers to fake grassroots movements, of grassroots movements Her campaign is hardly grassroots in drag. Look at the Tea Party movmement for astroturfing. Clinton has never framed herself as a grassroots movement.

                      I don’t know where to begin with conspiracy theorists who point to click-counters on the internet as some measurement of who won a debate. It’s simply absurd!

  9. This is a crisis election with Republicans deserting to Clinton and former “know nothings” flooding to Trump. Voting for either is an excercise in futility. The ruling class controls the state whichever politician is used to front its decline and fall. Despite Trumps superficial differences with Clinton, both serve the state machine that props up US imperialism and its death march. The US needs a mass workers party now!

    http://redrave.blogspot.co.nz/2016/09/election-that-never-was-votes-well.html

  10. The US election has taught me that Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for.

    A very large branch came crashing down onto a fence off one of our massive gum trees last week. I’m sure it’s her fault.

  11. I’m just happy that someone with Left-leaning supporters (to side-step the suggestion she is in the tank for Wall Street) has any idea what a strategic plan looks like.

    BTW anyone who thinks a Trump win would do anything for the struggling classes is disqualified from opining on the subject until they pass 3rd Form Civics. (Which, of course doesn’t exist, which might explain it).

  12. In the not-unlikely event of the early demise of either of the current contestants, seriously – does anyone want either Pence or Kaine as ‘president’? They each have half the charisma of lab mice. Neither is likely to morph into LBJ.

      • What a wonderful world it would be if Bernie Sanders came forward now as the Democratic nominee as he was the only real choice for honesty here sadly but age is a benefit for us in this age of youth running everything with a trigger finger, on that nuclear missile button.

        Likewise Jeremy Corbyn over in UK in Government then our world may have a survival chance of 60% rather than 6% as is now.

        • Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn would have the same effect if elected. None.

          The forces of interest or inertia at the top and the fear of massive disruption among the rest of society would stop them dead in their tracks.

          You shouldn’t plan to win a game with an intercept try.

          You have to win the argument first or the best you can aspire to is a Russian Revolution.

          Gulag, anyone?

          • So what “effect” would you expect when Trump wins? A plutocracy with a different beast in the cave? He is now on the loose, basically no longer cares about what the Republicans think, say and do.

            If enough shortsighthed, angry and disillusioned vote for him, the rich will certainly get lower taxes, and his whole fiscal and economic policy will cause major upsets, as there will be insufficient cash to care for the poor and vulnerable, while he will waste billions on a wall to Mexico, and also force renegotiation of trade deals, flexing the muscle of the US, which will perhaps benefit some in the US, but not the ordinary worker, as Trump likes to say: “You are fired” (without pay).

            A lesser and a greater evil, that is what we can now expect, Sanders is irrelevant now, sadly.

  13. Fatty; (The reply mechanism is missing from your last reply above)

    Just can’t seem to let go aye? Now that is a sign.

    As stated previous, others will decide the obvious.

    ‘Two birds with one stone.’

    Cheers.

    • “Just can’t seem to let go aye? Now that is a sign.”

      Yes, a sign of frustration. I’m frustrated that people fall for truther stories and other conspiracies.
      As a leftist who wants to see an end to capitalism it does frustrate me to see ‘leftists’ believing silly theories. Dot-connecting and comforting stories won’t solve anything. It’ll just perpetuate capitalism and solidify power in the hands of a few.

      “As stated previous, others will decide the obvious.”

      I’m not sure what you mean by that – who are the others, what will they decide and what is the obvious?

Comments are closed.