“You’ve been Trumped” a documentary



I do not support Trump and will not vote for him or Clinton. IMO Trump is a man limited by his own demons as is she. He is trapped in a mentality that is altogether focused on closing deals. In that mentality the closer fits into the end state of the deal as the person, usually of high rank in the group seeking closure who wines, dines, flatters, tries to intimidate, abuses psychologically, whatever it takes to get a signature. After that the closer walks away and on to the next closure where the process is repeated. In that context what was said or done in the last closure is irrelevant and the closer is "safe" from blow-back over that. The handlers of the deal will take care of that. For Trump the idea that people will hold it against him that he is an abusive bully is surprising. This results IMO in his fragile ego requiring him to fight back angrily like a child in a schoolyard.  His fragile ego also prevents him from ever, ever admitting error even in the most trivial errors of grammar, i.e., "they don't write good."  From the point of view of the Republicans it really is a shame.  With any of several candidates they could have beaten her.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to “You’ve been Trumped” a documentary

  1. tim s says:

    I didn’t get a feeling that the Repubs really made an effort to win in the 1st place. With the Neocons & Neolibs seemingly behind Hillary in the 1st place, the Repub race almost seemed to be more show than normal.
    I’m not sure many people really have THAT much faith in Trump. Many are behind him to throw a wrench in the works of TPTB. There is not much else to do. Whether he will deliver on anything is unknown, even unlikely. However, I don’t think there is much doubt what results will come from HC being elected, which elicits absolute nausea in many, including myself. Trump would look good against almost nobody, which speaks loudly about how detestable she is.
    There are no good options at this stage of the game, which is no surprise.

  2. Richard Sale says:

    Trump lacks moral courage. He lacks physical courage. He fights as a coward fights — Obama’s birth certificate, Sen. Cruz Canadian birth, etc. He has no tenacity of purpose. He is a spoiled child who is incapable of analyzing himself — it us always the other guy’s fault.
    He has no integrity, no dignity, no self pride that can suffer in the face of adversity. bravery means acting in the face of fear even though the odds are you will fail. trump has no bravery; he is merely a school yard bully.
    Both Presidential candidates are a disgrace to our nation.
    Richard Sale

  3. Edward says:

    I don’t want to vote for Trump either but I am scared that Clinton will get us into another war. Ordinarily, I don’t believe in “lesser evil” voting but if the difference between Trump and Clinton is another war with Syria, Iran, or especially Russia then I feel obliged, reluctantly, to vote for Trump, although I think he will be bad for the country. The people in Washington, the “borg”, seem to live in their own reality and capable of extremely reckless and dangerous actions including, apparently, a nuclear war with Russia. Clinton, Nuland, and Flournoy seem like a nightmare foreign policy team.
    To some extent during this campaign Trump has been independent of the “borg”. Would this continue during a Trump presidency? He has already caved on the Palestine issue, probably due to a bribe from Sheldon Adelson. Hopefully, by November the public will have a clearer picture of his foreign policy. There is also still a chance that Clinton’s legal problems could derail her campaign. Rep. Goodlatte is seeking a perjury investigation against her.

  4. robt willmann says:

    pl, Doug Colwell,
    Thanks for finding a spot where “You’ve Been Trumped” can be seen at no charge. When I was casting around last night to try to find an address where it could be viewed for free, I missed that one.

  5. eakens says:

    This might be the first election where you get people vowing to move if either candidate wins.

  6. DC says:

    Somehow, Gary Johnson needs to get more press in order to reach the 15% threshold to be allowed to debate our Two Disgraces. He could easily reach that number if anyone has the power to turn on the loudspeaker. Even if Johnson couldn’t reach the required # of delegates in the national election, his presence could be enough to throw the Presidency to the House. Hence, Kasich, in the best case, or someone like him. Dare to dream, I suppose…and it’s not even a good dream!!

  7. turcopolier says:

    Edward et al
    I have been contemplating the comments here by medical people about HC’s health. I have looked around in the internet and can’t find anything published in 2016. Anyone know of anything substantial? pl

  8. Tyler says:

    Kasich is a neocon who would have tried for an amnesty to price how great and good he was and ran further to the Left as the media attacked him like they have Trump. America would have stayed home for Ohio Romney.
    The Khans have been on the news 500x more than Sean Smith, for instance. They are the propaganda arm of the DNC and are doing what they can to drag their candidate across the finish line. Trump is not perfect but he is the man you need to bring the media to heel.

  9. Tyler says:

    Settle down Galahad. I’m electing a man who’s going to build a wall, not the guy who’s going to reclaim the Holy Grail.

  10. Tyler says:

    Price should have been prove and Sean should have been Pat Smith. Apologies for the confusion.

  11. Tyler says:

    Good luck on that. Have you seen the video of her having a partial sim0le seizure talking to a reporter?

  12. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I’m not sure if Kasich would have been necessarily any better than Trump. Throughout the primaries, the only voters he drew, until the day Trump clinched, were regular Republican voters, the so-called “country club” types. He had no prospect of expanding the electorate beyond what Romney had in 2012, if that much, and he went about campaigning as the ultimate regular Republican politician without much else to sell. In an era where huge segments of the electorate are unhappy with the status quo, that seems silly.
    Trump gives the Republicans a high risk option to expand the electorate–gain additional working class voters, at the risk of alienating a large chunk of the country club types. Now, one might wonder if, given all the negatives HRC has compared to Obama in 2012, Mitt Romney from 2012 would have beaten her and it is quite possible, but it is not obvious if the GOP advantage, if they had any at all, would have been any significant.

  13. Trump lacks moral courage – where have our ‘moral’ politicians got us?
    He lacks physical courage – evidence?
    He fights as a coward fights – he fights to win. Current political environment is war by other means.
    No tenacity or purpose – he’s stuck to his guns so far
    No self reflection – possibly correct there.
    No integrity – depends where you look. mixed record
    no self pride/adversity- we don’t know because he hasn’t been in adversity
    bravery against the odds – he has taken them on, faced fierce opposition.
    school yard bully – politics isn’t school, and Trump for all his faults has a will to power that the basic b***h Republican lacks.
    I believe Trump has a number of good ideas/qualities (less confrontational foreign policy, pragmatic, somewhat anti-oligarch, independence from the powers that be, restore manufacturing base, reign in immigration to stop balkanization). If he has to wage total rhetorical war in the face of entrenched opposition to basic common sense policies, then so be it.
    Trump is a result of a declining socio-political order. The formless strongman who arise in an a phase of dissolution. IMO, blaming a the contingency that Trump is which offers at least some hope of ‘a return to normalcy’ threatens the relatively good with the perfect. He’s not the saviour. But he’s what we’ve got.

  14. Swampy says:

    I always thought he handled “gotcha” comedy character Ali G well.

  15. Richard Sale says:

    That sounds very clever. I’m not sure what it means.
    Richard Sale

  16. TV says:

    Kasich is (like most of them including Shrillary) another career Republicrat – never held a job outside of politics/lobbying.
    The career apparatchiks are only about self-promotion and feeding at the public trough.
    Trump has major foot/mouth disease, but he’s not one of THEM.

  17. Jack says:

    The Khans were on the DNC stage to bait Trump. IMO, he took it hook, line and sinker. What could have been a one day news cycle turned into a 4 day news cycle where it was perceived that Trump is trivializing the sacrifice of a US Army captain. In hindsight I’m sure he’ll also agree that in his first statements and interviews to respond to the attack by the Khans, he could have done better by acknowledging the sacrifice and heroism of the soldier and then focusing on why was this sacrifice even necessary. He could have launched into the whole Iraq invasion decision making and the role played by the establishment of both parties. The human costs and the anarchy. He could have used the opportunity to frame the establishment vs the people story.
    He got pwned on this one. Hopefully he learns. He’s got to know by now that the MSM and the punditry are an arm of Hillary’s campaign. He shouldn’t make it easy for them.

  18. HawkOfMay says:

    He lacks physical courage – evidence?
    — bone spurs, yah right.
    He fights as a coward fights – he fights to win. Current political environment is war by other means.
    — Knowing what fights you can win and what fights you cannot win is key to a leader of any brand or political leaning. Trump does not understand that and his mentality will never adapt to that point of view. Blinding attacking when the battle is lost is not how you win a war. “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.”, Pierre Bosquet
    No tenacity or purpose — he’s stuck to his guns so far
    —- No he hasn’t. As mentioned above; blinding attacking when a simple acknowledgement of someone sacrifice is not tenacity, it is stupidity. An inability to acknowledge your faults is not tenacity. Trump has no grounding. His world view is built upon sand and the zero-sum game. He does not have the moral compass that a firm belief in Religion brings, he has no knowledge of the lessons of history, and he has no understanding of philosophy and the balance that can bring to a world view. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869
    When I think of Trump I think of this quote:
    Thus they let their anger and fury take from them the sense of humanity, and demonstrated that no beast is more savage than man when possessed with power answerable to his rage. “The Life of Cicero”

  19. raven says:

    You are not electing anybody.

  20. gowithit says:

    Trump vs Clinton: “We’re up the creek without a paddle!”

  21. rakesh wahi says:

    please dont underestimate the role of media – just three reporters by hammering Gore all summer gave us Bush

  22. Dubhaltach says:

    “He is trapped in a mentality that is altogether focused on closing deals.”
    Some years ago I read about Neville Chamberlain that he as a practical Birmingham businessman simply could not understand those who did not see politics as a process of bargaining and that the “peace in our time” agreement was the direct result of that character flaw.
    I often meet people of my generation who simply cannot understand why somebody would volunteer to serve in the army for a few years when they “could be advancing their career”. ALmost invariably these people are something in advertising/marketing, banking/financial more often financial services than banking, or auctioneers (estate agents). Interestingly enough people in the science based professions often understand exactly why somebody would volunteer to serve in the army for a few years.
    Perhaps Trump’s character type is commoner that people realise.

  23. Tyler says:

    It means your metrics are ridiculous and you’re just looking for an opportunity to stand on your box and virtue signal to your peers.
    As usual.

  24. Edward says:

    I don’t have any info about her health. I saw part of a rally this weekend on C-Span where HC sounded awful.

  25. Tyler says:

    Good grief I’ve seen some mendacious interpretations before but this takes the cake.
    “Yeah he doesn’t let himself be used as a punching bag by the DNC when they try to leverage a parent’s grief he had nothing to do with against him WHAT A LOSER”.
    Cucks. Cucks everywhere.

  26. Muzaffar Ali says:

    Trump, despite all his faults, is innocent of any war crimes.
    Cannot say the same for HC.
    Clinton never…Trump may be.

  27. Tyler says:

    Trump punching back and pointing out that the Khan’s son would have been alive if he had been president was a good counter blow. No one who was going to vote for Trump before isn’t going to vote for him now because of some parent’s using their dead son as a shield to attack a presidential candidate.

  28. oofda says:

    They are already asking whether Trump is sane. On Morning Joe, Scarborough and other Rs were actually discussing whether he was mentally fit, based upon his past actions and statements. This is less than two weeks after his own party Convention, and even Republicans are asking this question. Rep Gallegos (D-NM), a veteran, said the same on CNN today.
    Does he know the difference between truth and fiction?

  29. steve says:

    Went back and looked at the GOP candidates. I think anyone other than Trump, Carson, Florina or Cruz could have won pretty easily, with the exception of Bush. I think he could have still won, but it would have been close. Trump can still win, but probably not easily. As he has noted himself, he could shoot someone and his supporters will still vote for him. The problem is that he also needs extra votes, with the caveat that it is certainly possible we could be looking at record low turnouts so that a small group of enthusiastic voters could make the difference.

  30. Erika says:

    I’m not an American, nor do I live in the States, and I hope people don’t mind my participation in this discussion … um … as to the question of the two, Clinton or Trump, I prefer Trump.
    1. I hope he builds the wall or something resembling it, for the simple reason that I do not think people realize that by having a open border, how much it is destabilizing the Latin American countries. The influx of people from Cuba or elsewhere to Ecuador, or Costa Rica, or from El Salvador / Honduras to Guatemala is putting the safety of those fragile democracies in jeopardy. I was watching a report that talked about the problems of Syrian and African refugees to Latin / South America, the difficulties they are experiencing in taking in refugees and lack of bureaucratic oversight, how all of this is impacting their economies, their social / health services, and the resentment that it builds between the local poor vs the new refugee who demand / or need so much.
    So yes, a wall or something like it otherwise you might end up having something resembling the middle east in terms of strife on your southern border.
    2. Blood on their hands. Do you want a career politician who has continuously lied or whose actions/deeds or words sent others to their death? Of all his failings, Trump has not done that, the same cannot be argued of Clinton.
    3. Inward vs outward looking. I honestly believe, that at this moment of time, American deserve a more inward looking President. I have family in the States and I travel frequently to visit them, and I can honestly say that your infrastructure is crumbling. Employment of good paying, or full-time jobs is down, and the only one who seems to see the problem is Trump.
    You can’t tackle the problem if you ignore it and don’t admit to it.
    4. Governance and Ego. I do think Trump can govern but I do not believe he would be allowed by the political left and right. Let me explain, if Clinton wins, both the left and the right will rubber stamp any or all of her initiatives. That is scary.
    Trump on the other hand, yes, he’s a bully, but once in government, do you honestly believe his initiatives will be rubber stamped? Or will he have a battle on his hand? Would he need to comprise and negotiate? Seems less scary.
    Oh, I almost forgot Kasich … I can honestly say he was forgettable. There was no depth, that I could sense or relate to as a person, so I am not surprise that American’s found it difficult as a whole to relate to him. He had no charisma.

  31. Stephen Calhoun says:

    It is interesting to read and reflect on the most charged part of any big political picture, the pure plays for emotion and feeling-fueled commitment. This would represent the “anti-wonk” continuum. This is where fervor and aggression come to play. The ‘how’ questions are absorbed by the furies, so-to-speak.
    Stepping back from this fiery realm, are all those who peddle its contextualization. My favorite such contextualization–although I do not in any way favor it–holds that both parties are the same outside of religious differences, and have unknowingly worked together to bring the nation closer to a moment of reckoning. Out of this moment will arise: an American Caesar, and his hard scrabble patriotic legions, and, with this will come the restoration of Tradition and its philosophers. (You can’t make this stuff up!)
    I note that American war casualties have been dropping over the last Obama term. Might HRC continue this rather than indulge her inner Cheney?

  32. Edward,
    As a Brit, this is not my election. But while I am completely persuaded by the Colonel’s analysis of Trump, I do think that this is a case for ‘lesser evil’ voting.
    On an earlier thread, I picked up on a paper by the historian and former policy planner William R. Polk, to which Brigadier Ali referred us back in November 2014.
    I see that on Polk’s website one can find not only this paper, which is entitled ‘Strategy and Tactics: Is America Losing Its Way?’, but also a range of other materials on issues concerned with nuclear weapons, Ukraine, the Middle East etc.
    All this material should I think be of interest to people interested in deciding who, in this election, is the ‘lesser evil’.
    (See http://www.williampolk.com/articles.html .)
    A hair-raising – if comic, in a Strangelovian kind of way – passage relates to Polk’s description of how, after Khrushchev’s withdrawal of the missiles from Cuba on 28 October 1962, he participated in a ‘war game’ organised by the Kennedy Administration, which dealt with what would have happened if the missiles had not been withdrawn.
    In this, the ‘Blue Team’ – the United States – “took out” a Russian city with nuclear weapons.
    After deliberating, the ‘Red Team’ – of which Polk was a member, concluded that the only possible Russian response was essentially that recommended by General Turgidson to President Merkin Muffley in the film, in reverse: an ‘immediate and all-out nuclear bombardment of the United States’.
    A central lesson which Polk is trying to drive home, all these years later, is that ‘the first lesson to be learned in this near catastrophe was try to understand the opponent’s point of view.’
    Put like that, of course, there is a danger that it sounds as though ‘empathy’ need imply ‘sympathy’.
    Actually, as the other two case studies he discusses – Somali pirates and jihadists – illustrate, that need not be the case at all.
    A serious attempt to understand how people see things may make one inclined to conciliate people – it may also make you convinced you have no option but to exterminate them.
    Sometimes, a combination of the two approaches is apposite (see, for example, current Russian strategy in Syria.’
    It is a case-by-case matter.
    However, neither the Clintons, nor any of those associated with them, have ever displayed the slightest indication of a realisation that, in relation to nuclear threats, the boot is now, as it were, on the other foot.
    Traditionally sceptical about Western notions of ‘deterrence’, confronted with the collapse of their conventional power, the Russians abandoned their earlier repudiation of ‘first-use’.
    It is not highly likely, but it is perfectly possible, in the light of Western policy both in regard to Ukraine and Syria, that at some point Putin might find himself confronting the same problem as the Kennedy Administration faced more than half-a century ago.
    Do you climb down, with all the problems that might involve, or do you implement nuclear threats?
    When I heard Hillary Clinton comparing Putin’s actions over Crimea to Hitler’s takeover of the Sudentenland, I knew that this woman was not simply infinitely morally contemptible, but stupid, ignorant, and plain dangerous.
    She displays a total inability even to try to ‘understand the opponent’s point of view.’
    And then Margaret Steinfels explained to me that ‘Perhaps her foreign policy tendencies are simply leftovers from 1950s Cold War America (we did have to hide under our desks during air raid drills.)’
    If indeed new Cuba-style crises may be managed by someone who jumped out of silly Goldwaterite Republican views on foreign policy into silly Vietnam-era leftism, and has now found a peculiar toxic combination of both, heaven help us.
    Brehnevism did not work for the Soviet Union – and it will not work for the United States, or indeed Britain.
    (Although, ironically, Teresa May could be less ‘Brezhnevite’ then any of the possible alternatives.)

  33. r whitman says:

    I tend to agree with you but you, me and many other American commenters on this blog have done quite well with the current hogs at the trough. Do we want to screw it all up with a NOT THEM like Trump. When you make a change of that magnitude one of three things happen 1. things get better, 2. things get worse or 3. things stay the same. You have only one out of three chances for improvement whereas if you elect the hogs you have two out of three chances of the same or better circumstances.

  34. ked says:

    I’ve observed The Donald since the early ’80s. I derived a sort-of test based upon his revelation of self whenever he gained public attention (so, there’s lotsa data).
    “Trump’s behavior is best explained; a) by the circumstances he’s in, or b) that he’s an unmitigated blowhard asshole.”

  35. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Jack, Tyler,
    A poster over a Naked Capitalism got curious as to how the Khans wound up on the DNC podium. I’ll let her research speak for itself:
    Katniss Everdeen
    August 2, 2016 at 10:54 am
    A friend has wondered lately how Mr. Khan and his wife found their way to that dnc podium.
    Your comment intrigued me, so I decided to to a little investigatin’.
    At the time of his son’s death in 2004, Khan was a lawyer in the d. c. firm Hogan & Hartson. After a 2010 merger with a London-based law firm, it is currently know as Hogan Lovells.
    As a Muslim immigrant and colleague, the death of Khan’s son in 2004 was mourned by the lawyers of his firm.
    In 2002, another (in)famous lawyer joined Hogan & Hartson as a partner in the Litigation Practice Group by the name of…….. Loretta Lynch. She left the firm in 2010 to return to “public service.”
    Hogan Lovells is registered to lobby for saudi arabia through 2016. Kahn now runs his own law office specializing in “immigration issues.”
    I guess neither could be expected to consider a Trump presidency a good thing.
    My, my. Well done Katniss.

  36. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Jack, Tyler, Col. Lang (from whom I request forbearance for dropping another cut/paste into the thread),
    I just revisited the thread below Katniss’ comment and found this. Very interesting, no?
    August 2, 2016 at 12:54 pm
    FWIW, I submitted this in yesterday’s links, but very late.
    From Katniss Everdeen:
    ” As undeniably tragic as the Khan story is, Mr Khan should consider carefully the policies for which he is advocating.”
    I’m pretty sure Mr. Kahn already has given careful consideration to his policies. He’s actually written about his position on Islamic Jurisprudence and Sharia at some length.
    My ears perked up when I read that Khan was a Harvard lawyer, so I tried to find out about his bio. (I do that with international figures ever since Sakashvili). General bios indicate that he migrated from Pakistan to Dubai, and then came to America by getting himself into Harvard law school. This site, however, provides additonal detail (despite the breathless tenor):
    At the very least, Mr. Khan seems to be quite well-connected with Islamic elites; Said Ramadan (Tariq Ramadan’s father) is indeed a pioneer of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, and Mr. Khan seems to be involved in the movement himself. For some time, I would have thought that interest like Mr. Khan’s in Sharia law should be regarded as benign. That was before I became aware of a confidential document of the Brotherhood, the Explanatory Memorandum uncovered by the FBI. There’s an infamous section:
    “The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Proecess” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.”
    Don’t know about anyone else, but no one with close connections to the Ikhwan (i.e., Brotherhood) gives me warm & fuzzies anymore. At the very least, there’s more to Mr. Kahn’s background than just a simple immigrant trying to make a go of it in America. Whatever his background, he’s quite a larger fish than he appeared to be at first sight.
    My sympathies are with Mr. Khan and his family for his son’s death. I’ll reserve my judgment on other matters.
    Clarifying information it would seem to me concerning Mr. Khan.

  37. Edward Amame says:

    I’m not a Trump fan, but find this suspect. Documentarians come with a point of view, and I don’t know this filmmaker from Adam, so I’m gonna consider this one guy’s viewpoint and not the final word on Trump’s Scottish Affair.
    If you really want to know Trump, check out some local reporters (NY, NJ, Philadelphia) who really know the guy. Wayne Barrett, formerly of the Village Voice, and the Philadelphia Enquirer (re: Atlantic City) have reported in-depth on his real estate doings for years.

  38. Thomas says:

    What would be the procedure if a nominated candidate has an incapacitating event, VP select moves up, special convention, other…?

  39. Fred says:

    “The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Proecess”
    Being entrenched in the legal and educational systems is a great place to help destroy the fabric of our society.
    It looks like the link isn’t working but the story comes up using the search function.

  40. Karl Kolchack says:

    Re: Kasich–on the other hand, had Trump not so thoroughly obliterated Bush, Cruz and Rubio, Kasich would have had no shot at the nomination anyway.

  41. The Beaver says:

    may be this will clarify things for some conspiracy theorists who see the bogeyman everywhere:
    Yeah , the Shoebats – excuse my unladylike language – the whores of the Islamophobes like Pamela Gellers and Daniel Pipes.
    BTW: The Khans were approached three time before being invited to speak at the DNC after this was published:
    Vocativ interviewed the parents after their son was killed back in 2004 – hence this denounciation back in December 2015.

  42. hgh says:

    “With someone like Kasich they could easily have beaten her.”
    This is so wrong. Republicans have lost the popular vote in presidential elections for the past quarter century (save Bush in 2004, who right after imploded). Since Democrats now run on an explicitly racialist/communitarian platform demographically they would continue to win (albeit by a small margin) for the foreseeable future. Trump by bringing in a populist platform has the potential to create a feasible coalition for the Republicans. He can fail but its a workable political strategy nonetheless.
    You are fooling yourself if you think a schmuck like Kasich could get anywhere. He is a “moderate” for the countries elite, he is an militant extremist (on social,political, economic,and foreign policy) for the general population. The Republican conservative base would hate him, Independents would be scared by his anti-entitlements platform, Democrats would consider him “Hitler.” Guy would get nowhere.

  43. turcopolier says:

    We will see how fast, if at all Trump’s poll recover. pl

  44. Tyler says:

    I love the disinformation. No one is calling him a Muslim Brotherhood agent, but pointing out that:
    1) He’s an immigration lawyer who advocates for more Muslim immigration and EB-5 visas
    2) He’s published lengthy essays about how Sharia Law is Best Law
    3) He’s connected extensively with the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
    So he’s not exactly some unbiased parent here.
    Also lmbo snopes. Really?

  45. Tyler says:

    When they do recover I’m sure that, like Reuters did, they’ll rejig their “methodology” to pretend that Hillary is still in the lead.

  46. VietnamVet says:

    Perhaps Donald Trump will tighten immigration and de-conflict the Balkans. But, he has to overcome the wrath of his fellow plutocrats first.
    Corporate media is out to get him. The Khans, technocrat immigrants, were used to bait and then beach him. He breaks too many connected rice bowls.
    Second, Kevin Drug indicates that the October Surprise is the American seizure Raqqa and Mosul. The Democrats can work with fear.
    Finally, there can’t be a November revolt if the electronic votes cannot not be verified.

  47. turcopolier says:

    hgh and KC
    I was in a hurry and will change my post to indicate that several Republicans could have defeated Clinton. pl

  48. Fred says:

    They have another thing in common, none of them say they are moving to Mexico.

  49. The Beaver says:

    Yeah right, that’s why Roger Stone walked back his accusations:
    As far as Roger Ailes, well guess he is looking for skirts to chase since he is out of his harem 🙁

  50. Fred says:

    Don’t forget voter roll purges, which are apparently happening in Ohio this time around.

  51. When Kasich said that line about punching Russia in the nose, I knew he was not qualified. Trump’s comments about cooperating with Putin in the Middle East have not been bad. He also said if Assad goes, the next guy could be worse.
    That he likes Bolton is troubling, but his comments have been in many cases the least goofy on foreign policy.
    Hilary, just by her bumbling as SofS disqualify her.
    It would be instructive to watch Stephen Cohen school Smerconish.

  52. optimax says:

    Here is a documentary on Trump from 1991. It’s in 12 parts, some as short as a few minutes. I’ve only watched the first six segments and it looks like the last few sections were added on later.
    It shows Donald to be a brilliant and driven businessman who in the beginning used his father’s money, political and business connections in NY to secure prime real estate without having to invest his own money and receiving extremely favorable tax abatements. He is also a contrarian that bought a property most thought useless and turned it into a luxury hotel and has invested quite profitably at market bottoms. That’s the positive Donald. On the other hand, he is a world-class bull shitter, has no empathy for others, bullies people and loses his temper easily.
    I’ve known people like him, fortunately very few, and think they are narcissists with psychotic tendencies. They are incapable of listening to others; they only want to talk. They never admit they are wrong or make a mistake. They reward loyalty and try to destroy those they consider disloyal. They do not understand the difference between their ego and physical self and think of attacks on their ego as existential threats. Trump is the type of leader who could plan the destruction of ISIS and stop illegal immigration. But he will make Nixon’s Enemies list and Dirty Tricks look like Victorian parlor games.
    Clinton Cash convinces me that Hillary would be the most corrupt president this country has ever had.
    I”m sticking with Pat Paulson.

  53. turcopolier says:

    You may have missed the fact that I have broadened the post to be about the field of Republicans, not just Kasich. BTW I personally dislike Kasich having shared a stage with him for several days and think him a nasty little streetling. pl

  54. LondonBob says:

    I still don’t understand what their son’s death has to do with Trump?

  55. Tyler says:

    Oh I see, we are playing the “OH YEAH THIS GUY SAID THIS HUH HUH” obfuscation game which is intangible to the greater points at hand.
    Explain to me how Trump has more culpability re: the Khan’s versus Hillary and the Smiths. I’ll wait.

  56. Tyler says:

    There is none. Its just more liberal double think where Chris Kyle is a fraud but Khan is a Dawkins-holy icon that cannot be criticized.

  57. Tyler says:

    I’m not but they have a lot less power now than they did then.

  58. Tyler says:

    Just caught this. You’re taking Kelly’s ten year old allegations serious? My sides.
    Meanwhile Bill Clinton is just the victim of a right wing conspiracy eh?

  59. turcopolier says:

    I don’t see a connection between the son’s death and Trump, but IMO their pilgrimages from shows to interviews to comments are also unseemly. Captain Khan was at the University of Virginia from ’96 to 2000 and was a member of the Reserve Officer Training corps. This was a voluntary association. I am curious to know if he had a scholarship from ROTC. His father was well employed with a major Washington law firm and presumably the younger Khan would not have needed money to attend U Va, but it is the flagship of the Virginia public university system and desirable. I heard his mother say that his military service obligation was ended by 2004 and that he did not need to go to Iraq for three months to be with the 1st Infantry Division’s forward deployed elements from his post with the division’s rear elements in Germany. I doubt that his mother’s memory of his service obligation is correct. Whether or not he had taken scholarship money from the US Army, he would have been an officer in either the Army Reserve or the Regular Army and his service obligation would have extended well beyond 9/11 when the Army imposed “stop loss” provisions to prevent the voluntary separation from active duty of officers in either category. So, I don’t know what she is talking about. Foresman, TTG or someone else with actual current knowledge will explain it to me. He was an Ordnance Corps officer. That means he was a logistics guy. That is fine, but not exactly a leader of grunts. Once in Iraq he was in a logistics battalion, in the headquarters company of that battalion. This is the housekeeping/administrative part of the battalion. He was out inspecting the guard posts of the FOB they lived in one day and a suicide bomber somehow drove into the post and detonated himself. End of story. pl

  60. Kooshy says:

    David thank you, very well put, this is the best comment ever, not only for sake of America, but for the God’ and the rest of the planet, AMERICAN voters they need to stop this madness.

  61. In my dotage now, I miss a lot. Other than Rand Paul for the nanosecond he was in the race, they mostly all seemed war mongers.
    Bernie had it all over Hilary, but that was a low bar.

  62. Cvillereader says:

    Something curious, and not well reported is that the Khans now live in Charlottesville. I think one of their sons may have started a business here.
    The IRC is also extremely active in this area, and there seems to be a fairly large and recent increase in the number of Arabic “refugees” here.

  63. Had never heard the term streetling, but it sounds appropriate.

  64. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater to Turcopolier,
    Tyler has nailed it. This is a Zapruder moment! You can google a series of articles on the topic of Hillary having a seizure and Youtube has a number of reruns of the incident. The commentary thus far, prhaps because it comes from the overly zealous right seems to have been discounted up to now. I don’t think this episode is going to go away. The evidence is piling up that Hillary Clinton is in very bad health. I think the whole tension of the debates for me would be whether or not the drugs she has been injected with will keep her from simply collapsing at her lectern or not.
    There are three videos, shot from different angles, quite close, showing Hillary being interviewed by friendly young reporters. It should be a laid back pleasant bit of TV fluff. She is holding a cold cup of chai in her hand. She has been sipping from the cup through a straw.
    She is asked a question by a reporter somewhat behind her. It is a friendly soft-ball question. She begins to reply and is saying something routine, something about how gratifying a moment there had been at the convention, whatever, when suddenly something happens to her. It is absolutely astonishing. Her body stays in one position, but her neck muscles seem to contract again and again, while her head bobbles forward and back in the same plane. Her eyes do very strange things and do not seem focussed. For a millisecond or so she seems like a broken ragdoll, a person who has gone mentally absent, a person who has just been suddenly struck by some sort of seizure. The seizure lasts a matter of seconds.
    It seems likely to me that a reporter immediately asked her a question: “Are you all right?”
    My take on the young woman reporter second from right is that she has seen something strange. Her expression is very interesing to study. Perhaps she is the one who asked the question. It all happens very fast. Hillary now goes into a second bobble. This has been interpreted as her effort at deception, to hide the incredible thing that has just happened. I find this one also alarming. It seems counterfeit and not coordinated naturally. She says aloud, that they should try the chai. Really strong stuff. And gives one of her glassy laughs. It is obvious that her intention here is to suggest that the first bobble which came horribly out of nowhere and the second bobble were both caused by her enjoying herself, and because the chai was cold and good she did something spontaneous if perhaps a little silly. The reporters all get in step with her. They laugh in return.
    A man, obviously one of her “Minders” now says “All right” and that is the end of the interview. She is immediately taken away. The “Minders” know that something has just happened to her and that she has to be removed from public view immediately.
    I have looked at the three videos three or four times, not enough, to be sure, but my opinion is established that she had some sort of a seizure. The second bobble is different from the first. These videos should be discussed and analyzed in detail, as far as I am concerned.
    This is news!

  65. rjj says:

    the 2 worse outcomes are not equivalent: which “worse” has the potential to be catastrophic?

  66. rjj says:

    a) and b) are not mutually exclusive. b) is clearly not a disqualification for high office.

  67. rjj says:

    IMO, blaming a the contingency that Trump is which offers at least some hope of ‘a return to normalcy’ threatens the relatively good with the perfect.

    having trouble with the sense of the above. is it my comprehension problem?

  68. pl,
    It all depends on what the needs of Army were for ordnance officers in the 2000 year group. Even if he had a scholarship, there was no guarantee of an active duty commission. I have known many scholarship cadets that ended up in the Reserves even when they asked for and desired an active duty commission. Today the norm seems to be at least four years of active duty followed by additional Reserve time to add up to the eight year obligation. You’re right about stop loss. When that was put in place, your ass belonged to Uncle Sam for the duration.

  69. rjj says:

    “But he will make Nixon’s Enemies list and Dirty Tricks look like Victorian parlor games.”
    he is a loudmouth and blows up, but he have an actual track record of going [Karl] Rove, as in “we will destroy him etc.” Does he allow his underlings to do so?

  70. turcopolier says:

    Whichever component he was commissioned in he still would have been called to active duty after 9/11 and locked in for the duration so I still think there is something odd about her statement and them. BTW at his Washington law firm the father made a lucrative practice brokering rich Arabs into the US with out of sequence immigrant visas and green cards under the foreign investment provision in the immigration law. pl

  71. Tyler says:

    Mind today’s Trump controversy is that he was eating fried chicken with a fork which shows what a PHONY PHONY he is.
    Meanwhile during Hillary’s YUGE Omaha rally you see a super zoomed in close up that CNN is pushing and the reality is you’ve got maybe 50 people in front of the stage when you zoom out.
    Also, we must know Trump’s tax returns, but we don’t need to know the contents of the private speeches that Hillary gave Wall Street because I Said So, You Bigot.
    Treat the MSM as the enemy, because they are the enemy. They are the Borg.

  72. Tyler says:

    Yes it did.

  73. Harry says:

    For what little it is worth I agree entirely. In domestic policy I’m afraid she is not the lesser evil but merely the more effective evil. In FP it is simply that she scares me.

  74. This is a well made documentary. Granted I already had a low opinion of Trump as a greedy, uncaring, disdainful POS and this film only reinforced my opinion. The strength of the documentary lies in the excellent portrait the film maker painted of the people living in the small village in Aberdeenshire. These older people connected with the land and in tune with the rhythms of their unique environment are content with and appreciative of what they have. I could happily live among them, if they would have me.
    Watching this, I had a vision of how the construction of that huge, beautiful wall would proceed. I wouldn’t want to be a land owner along the border even though the purpose of the wall is to stop the procession of drug mules scampering across your land. BTW, Trump’s idea of securing our borders is eminently sensible, popular to all reasonable people and not even a bit crazy. The thought of a thirty foot wall financed by Mexico is a different story.

  75. Harry says:

    I read your post, and looked up the videos. I didn’t think the video conclusive.

  76. Tyler says:

    Yes it did, as I well know.

  77. Hank says:

    I’ve met Trump personally and chatted with him for 20 minutes. I’ve also met hundreds of Members of Congress, Secretaries, generals, and dignitaries (my former life was glamorous, sort of). The stuff I’ve heard and seen you wouldn’t believe. Anyway, I was Trump supporter about 1 second after I heard it mentioned on the radio that Trump had declared his candidacy. He was the most cordial, respectful and impressive guy I’ve ever met (and I’ve met Slick Willie up close for an hour). If Trump doesn’t win, we have surely entered the beginning of the thousand years of darkness.
    Btw, the facile BS about Trump not being the ideal candidate couldn’t be more untrue for this straight-GOP-voting middle-aged guy. I think Trump is way beyond any President we’ve had since Lincoln. And as a business titan he has a background second to none.

  78. Old Microbiologist says:

    I have watched all the videos of these supposed seizures and it very much looks to me like bad acting technique. She is clowning and trying to look cute. It is an exaggerated technique used on stage for laughs and was probably taught to her for some lightening effect of her miserable personality. The open mouth, tilted head and head role are classic for this technique. My 91 y/o mother who has many years of opera and Shakespearean acting experience does the exact same thing and yes it looks ridiculous and can be misconstrued to be a seizure.
    However, this does not discount the very real possibility she does have something very wrong as evidenced by the coughing fits. I know it borders on conspiracy theory but given this administration’s propensity to lie straight out and do back stage double deals, I lend some credence into the theory she was in a plane crash in Iran on an Army Aircraft during a top secret meeting with Iranian leaders. It makes better sense than falling down stairs and disappearing for a week and also explains the bizarre “suicide” of the commander of Seal Team 6 who was in charge of VIP security. It is hard to find a reputable site for this though. http://www.eutimes.net/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in-secret-us-mission-to-iran/
    Perhaps time will reveal the truth but this is as logical as anything else. Given the recent revelations regarding the Iran deals it is believable to me.

  79. Old Microbiologist says:

    I see it as a muti-prong effort to defeat Trump. The voting process is rigged, machines tampered with and voter validation thwarted, then we have a very real potential October surprise, all coupled with character assassination of Trump (not hard to do as he rises to the bait every time). If all of that fails he will just be eliminated. It looks like all of the globalists, neo-cons and neo-liberals have united against Trump now. Coupled with apparently unlimited funding from foreign governments it looks like an insurmountable obstacle for him. I predict a landslide against him in November.

  80. Jack says:

    I wonder what the quid pro quo was with Hillary fir the Khan’s to play the attack dog role using the sympathy of their son’s combat death? There seems to be a connection between the law firm he worked at and the Clinton’s tax attorney.
    It definitely was used by Obama and the GOP establishment to proclaim Trump was “not fit” for office.

  81. Tunde says:

    The Khans have become embroiled as political stooges and their politicization of their son’s death sullies his memory. I have a bigger issue with Trump’s desire to improve relations with Putin. I have no direct evidence but I believe Putin generally acts to undercut Western/coalition/NATO influence at every turn. Sure, it may be in his national interest but those are actions of an implacable opponent who seeks a strategic shift from Western power centres. I also believe that there is significantly more going behind the scenes of US-Russian relations that manifests as a passive-aggressive relationship between the two governments. SSTers are very clear eyed about China and its system of government yet give Putin a pass ? And on that basis Trump is the preferable candidate ? I fear Putin would run rings around Trump, diplomatically and strategically. Putin already has Europe in a lather politically, somewhat economically and strategically.
    What about Trump’s gratuitously aggressive comments towards China ? How would Trump react to China declaring a restricted military zone in the South China Sea ? We focus a lot on Western Europe but I fear as being more likely, a short and sharp military confrontation with China than Russia. I have read reports that President Xi is being urged into a more pugnacious military attitude by the PLA. With a President Trump, China will not want to lose face.
    What a poor choice our American friends have to make between the two candidates. If I were American, I’d stay at home in November.

  82. irf520 says:

    “It is not highly likely, but it is perfectly possible, in the light of Western policy both in regard to Ukraine and Syria, that at some point Putin might find himself confronting the same problem as the Kennedy Administration faced more than half-a century ago.”
    Not only is it likely, it is happening as we speak. The installation of ABM systems in Romania and soon in Poland is an attempt to nullify Russia’s nuclear deterrent.

  83. Lemur (RP) says:

    sorry, that sentence got away on me. Let me put it another way. Trump is the result of a compromised socio-political system which is probably not sustainable indefinitely. Spiralling debt, foreign wars, inchoate balkanization, income inequality, corporate influence on politics, split in values between elites and the masses, the the general cultural enui of McWord (trademark) etc etc. Into the season of discontent these factors generate will often step a figure promising what I call “systematic conservatism.” This has less to do with conservatism as a political theory, and more to do with *making things work*, which is the less sexy way of say Make America Great Again(!). Trump’s pitch is that he will essentially save the system from itself. Thus his proto-fascist aesthetic and methodology. But rather than being directed at the masses, this authoritarianism is directed at the system. Trump (says he) will authorize functionality, and proscribe dysfunction. Border out of control? Wall! Free trade deals hurting the middle class? Renegotiate! Ironically, he is thus the most pro-establishment candidate there is, if by establishment mean ‘believing that the continued existence of that which is established is a good thing.’
    So, Trump isn’t important in himself (as a true populist like Peron was), he’s important in that he represents certain conditions that have arisen in the nation, and a consequent attempt to rectify them. If he succeeds, he will have normalized the system, thus preserving it. Is Trump the best qualified person to do this? Probably not. But since the system opposes reform, only a select few people have (a) independent agency to confront the system (b) the willingness to do so and (c) the ability to communicate he has A and B. Trump alone meets that criteria presently.
    Trump IS winning, and you are advising him he’s not. Then you go on to implicitly commit the balance fallacy, and project *your* understandings of ‘philosophy’ and ‘history’ onto Trump. While Trump is no Rhode scholar, he has a keen intuition with which he has diagnosed a number of problems that resonate with the electorate. Those so-called ‘contradictions’ are resolved by the fact Trump is not an ideologue. He doesn’t care for ‘muh constitution, conservatism inc, and wedge issues’. As for the Cicero quote, that’s cute, but psychoanalysis explains too much (as Popper demonstrated) and can be turned on any view or approach. Tell me about your mother…
    When I think of Trump I think of this quote:
    “The greatness of an artist is not measured by the beautiful sentiments that he arouses – only girls can think along these lines – but by the degree to which he approaches the grand style. This has in common with great passion the disdain of pleasure; he forgets to persuade, he wills … Το make himself master of the chaos that one is, to force his own chaos to become form, mathematics, law – that is the grand ambition. Around such despotic men a silence is born, a fear, similar to what is felt at a great sacrilege.” Nietzsche
    Trump has retained his emphasis on the border, better trade policy, a more peaceful foreign policy, and independence from the powers that be. I’m completely comfortable with him waging total war on those that oppose that platform. A prince who is not in power can do no good.

  84. raven says:

    These are the people Tyler loves:
    “It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life,” Trump national spokeswoman Katrina Pierson said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, referring to Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan.
    Khan was killed in 2004 in Iraq, protecting fellow soldiers from a car bomb. You might recall that Obama did not take office until 2009.

  85. rjj says:

    Must be a Roger Stone protegee.

  86. jld says:

    I just want to reiterate my question (to Walrus, unanswered):
    What does the support of Peter Thiel to Trump mean?

  87. Richard Sale says:

    You are jeering, insulting and uncouth and mistaken as usual.

  88. Richard Sale says:

    Mr. Khan has said that Sharia law is entirely subordinate to the U.S. Constitution.
    Richard Sale

  89. Richard Sale says:

    Well, you are loud in your ridicule of him.
    Richard Sale

  90. Bill Herschel says:

    Don’t know what that is. Probably NOT a seizure.

  91. Tyler says:

    All true.
    Shouldn’t you be arguing for grown men who get a sexual kick out of pretending to be women to be allowed to use the same bathrooms that 6 year old girls do?

  92. Bill Herschel says:

    I do not take your testimony with a grain of salt. There are glimmers of Trump as a very intelligent man seen through the smoke of the media.
    And what lies in wait from Clinton becomes clearer every day:
    This is shaping up as a very difficult decision. For example, my previous paranoid ramblings probably don’t hold up. Russia will not profit from the U.S. as a failed state (assuming that it is not already a maximally failed state). On the other hand, the Republican platform is an atavistic return to the spirit of Prohibition. President Trump would be nuts to attempt to implement it.
    But perhaps there is a silver lining, and an amazing strategy.
    Trump, at the very least temporarily, rid the world of 18 handmaidens of shadowy billionaires pulling their puppet strings from behind the walls of their mulit-million dollar castles.
    Now, he is actively distancing himself from other Republican candidates. Could it be that he not only wants to be President but to be President presiding over a Democratic House and Senate? If he could pull that off, he would certainly be the most extraordinary President in our history.
    I await the debates eagerly. Very eagerly.

  93. optimax says:

    I don’t know what Trump has his underlings do. Trump does like to do his own fighting.

  94. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Polk is informed by the old mythos of the Lonely Cowboy, the new crop by that of Godfather & Don Corleone.
    The first group were proud to restore Justice, the second crowd only to advance the interests of the Family.
    It is the difference between Edward Grey and Herman Goering.

  95. OyinbonaMugu says:

    Trump loses and loses big. The question is the level of collateral damage to the down ballot republicans. Let the numbers speak – election.princeton.edu
    Just like Obama, its fascinating to see how much hope for change people are pinning on Donald. He is self sabotaging his own campaign. Thats the only way his behavior makes sense. He has no intention being President and will do all he can to make sure he loses.
    If I was conspiratorial – I’d say this is all a plan to get the Clintons the Presidency. They have history anyway – past contributions, wedding guest, kids are friends…..

  96. jonst says:

    In my opinion Gary Johnson is a moron. The more press he gets…the less votes he will get. If wants to do the best he can he should remain a cipher. By “moron”, I do not mean I disagree with his positions, or agree with them. I mean he is not the guy to argue his positions.

  97. rjj says:

    fighting is one thing. vindictiveness and the need to destroy are something else.

  98. rjj says:

    take it easy. remember all the times people have uttered the line about triumph of hope over experience. not as bad would be plenty good enough.

  99. rjj says:

    btw. not arguing – would really like to know the answer to the question.

  100. Babak Makkinejad,
    I do not think William R. Polk’s ‘mythos’ is that of the ‘lonely cowboy’.
    He is a certain kind of old-fashioned American gentleman. It may be relevant that he grew up in West Texas – and is related to President James K. Polk. Apparently he has abandoned the New World, and lives and writes in southern France.
    Also, William Polk is an historian, of a kind for whom the fascination of the craft is in entering into the minds of different people in different places. (It is not a mentality which comes easily to ‘Mayflower men’, unless they are in some measure in revolt against their heritage, like Melville.)
    As to the current lot, you do them too many favours. For the most part, ‘Groucho Marx Machiavellians’ seems an appropriate description.

  101. Swampy says:

    I was pleasantly surprised to see a Joe Bob Briggs article today and thought he did a great job explaining Trump’s appeal and why the media can’t understand it. it’s a hoot.
    “Most Americans think it’s okay to be an old coot with unpopular opinions. Most Americans feel that the federal government should get out of their business. And many Americans blame the Supreme Court for allowing the national social norms, set in New York and Washington, to filter into their communities in Wichita Falls, Boise and Spokane.”
    “… they’re not voting for Donald Trump because he’s a swell guy, they’re voting for the restoration of their personal liberty. Fortunately for their cause, the very fact that the media opposes them means they’re even more certain that it’s the right decision.”

  102. Irf520,
    My immediate concern is much more that with the effects of the panicky efforts of the ‘neocons’ in Israel and the United States to undo the consequences of the empowerment of the ‘Shia Crescent’ for which their bungling incompetence is almost entirely responsible.
    For quite intelligible reasons – one does really need to practise ‘hard empathy’, even with figures like Netanyahu (and I admit, here I do find instinctive repulsion makes it difficult) – these people are absolutely terrified of the steadily increasing accuracy, range and destructive power of the missiles which can be deployed from hardened Hizbullah positions in South Lebanon.
    Given that I do not think Hillary has any capacity to understand that Putin sees jihadists as an ‘existential threat’, and appears to have reverted to her Goldwaterite upbringing (without noticing that communism is, thankfully, no longer with us) I think the possibility of her getting into deep waters is a real one.
    The belief among large sections of the American élite that there is some magic technological solution by which they can restore the invulnerability the United States enjoyed prior to 1950, and maintain unquestioned military dominance of the planet, is certainly a background factor.
    Of course, this is suicidal stupidity, but I do not think that, in itself, it holds out the threat of an immediate confrontation.

  103. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The first war against Iran, by Iraq, from 1980 to 1988, severed Iran from the Arab Sunni World.
    The War-in-Syria-To-Wound-Iran and the rise of ISIS, severed the Shia and other non-Sunnis from the body of Islamic Ummah – in Iran, Turkey, Azerbaijan Republic, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and India.
    [I read today that the Nigerian Army had massacred 341 Shia Muslims with no evident excuse or cause.]
    Lastly, the EU Financial and Economic War against Iran severed that country from EU as well.
    We will see, in my opinion, over the coming decades the full denouement of these 3 wars.
    One can sit across a table and negotiate to one’s heart’s content – all the while thinking of the other side: “You wanted to kill me and my sons and sell my women folks into slavery.”

  104. gowithit says:

    Trump sinking fast! When well known, hard nose cops like NY Commissionaer Bratton has this to say this AM:
    “Mr. Trump scares me. Scares the hell out of me, to be quite frank with you,” Bratton said Wednesday on CBS’s “This Morning.”
    “I just don’t get it, in terms of the support for him,” Bratton added. “As a veteran, a Vietnam veteran, I’m amazed that veterans groups are so charmed by him.”
    Bratton also discussed Trump during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday, wondering whether the presidential hopeful “has ever taken a punch in his life.”
    “[Trump] talks tough, but I think a little bit about law and order and policing, I would not trust that he would be able to do much about that, being quite frank with you,” Bratton

  105. Jack says:

    Good article you linked to. I’ve never seen anything like this in all my years paying attention to American politics, when the entire establishment of both parties are against a major party candidate. It seems when you consider that the big money, the entire pundit class and the establishment of both parties are firmly in the anti-Trump camp and then you compound it with the major media outlets as active elements of the Hillary campaign, there is virtually no institutional support for Trump.
    This tweet takes the cake. Democrat Gavin Newsom congratulating Republican Meg Whitman on endorsing Hillary. https://t.co/Ok7g8jWDWq
    If Trump prevails after this onslaught it will be a giant FU!

  106. different clue says:

    I had always thought that ABM systems were never able to shoot down ICBMs and never would be. And that the ABM system hustlers knew that from the start. I had always thought that the sole and only point of the ABM hustle was to make money for the Hi Tech Scientific Industrial Complex. I was always amazed that the RussiaGov ever thought the ABM hustle was ever about anything else but grubbing money.
    Have I thought wrong?

  107. different clue says:

    If this is true, it begins to look like the Ikhwanists ( of various ethnic groups) are working to infiltrate the control and influence centers of American society the way the Gulenists were apparently infiltrating the control and influence centers of Turkish society.

  108. different clue says:

    The Beaver,
    I first heard about some of this stuff on replayed archival radio shows by someone named David Emory . . . a heterodox Leftist. He brought up that memorandum about the Muslim Brotherhood having a longest-range goal of Muslimizing the United States some day eventually. In some of his various broadcasts he has tried to tie in the Muslim Brotherhood with what he calls the Fascist International and the Underground Fourth Reich.
    Since some of it could be considered perhaps too foily for this blog, I was torn between mentioning it enough to offer a link, and not mentioning it at all. I compromised with myself by only mentioning David Emory’s name and not offering a link. And I wouldn’t have even mentioned it if not for this Khan matter.
    (I also heard about Gover Norquist the secret Muslim Subversive and agent of the Fascist International from David Emory years before I ever heard of Frank Giffney < or whatever his name is> saying stuff like that.)
    The subject of David Emory brings up another strange thing. Years ago on one of his broadcasts he talked about Hamas crafting a photo shop photo of Rachel Corrie sitting in plainest possible view in front of a bulldozer. The strange thing was that the bulldozer cast a shadow going in one direction and Rachel Corrie cast a shadow going in the other direction. I went to the Rachel Corrie wikipedia page and saw that it was there just exactly as David Emory described it. So I thought if David Emory is correct on a particular overlooked little detail like that, he might be right about other things. So I went back just now as part of writing this comment to look at that wiki and offer a link to it.
    When I got there, I found the photoshopped picture gone and some strictly legitimate non-photoshopped photos there instead. So I went to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to find the photoshopped photo there, and find it isn’t there either. Someone was able to reach into the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and retro-remove that photoshopped photo from all the “frozen past” screenshots as well. Now THAT is REACH and POWER . . . to re-write the footprints of the past like that. So while I can SAY that photoshopped photo existed, I can’t PROVE it any more AT ALL.
    Finally, what is a heterodox Leftist? Someone who describes himself as socialist and anti-fascist and etc. and acts that way . . . but will also devote entire radio program episodes or internet posts to a serious discussion of the UFO phenomenon as a real thing . . . is a heterodox Leftist.

  109. different clue says:

    rakesh wahi,
    I read that part of what the media, possibly including these three reporters, had against Gore ( aside from his ponderous boring affect and delivery) was that the free food he gave them at his media events was a lot less good than the free food they were used to getting at political media events. And they resented him for that.
    And thus is history sometimes made.

  110. dc,
    I think you may have done.
    One issue is that, technically, what is at issue with ABM systems is the ability to disable retaliation to a ‘first strike’.
    However, what can really expected to be achieved in concrete terms is not really the key to the matter.
    A critical issue has always been ‘escalation dominance’ – that is, calculations about how the hypothetical outcome of an all-out military confrontation will affect people’s ability to readiness to take risks in more limited confrontations, whose outcome can however be, cumulatively decisive.
    A problem is that ‘escalation dominance’ is a matter of psychology.
    It has been clearly demonstrated that American élites took for granted that their massive superiority in military power in the post-Cold War world meant that they could do what they wanted, in relation to the Middle East, the Balkans, and Ukraine, and that in the end the Russians would have to ‘eat their spinach’ to use Victoria Nuland’s memorable phrase.
    So it is not simply irrational for Soviet planners to fear that the eventual outcome of the kind of plans put forward by Ashton B. Carter and other ‘Strangeloveites’ is a United States which believes it can totally disregard Russian interests and concerns.
    Even if the notion that they could totally disable retaliatory capabilities by a combination of a ‘first strike’ and ABM systems is utopian, they might act recklessly in local conflicts in the confidence that the Russians would be cowed.
    There may also be internal political issues.
    One has to remember the euphoric view the Gorbachev-era ‘new thinkers’ had of the West – on this, see a useful discussion by Matthew Evangelista.
    (See http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/mae10/Evangelista,-Process-Tracing.pdf .)
    A quote:
    ‘Anatolii Cherniaev, Gorbachev’s main foreign policy aide, took Reagan’s profession of the West’s goodwill to heart more than anyone. In May 1990, he reassured Gorbachev that it would be safe to withdraw Soviet forces from Europe, for “no one will attack us even if we disarm totally.”
    Last month, following the NATO Warsaw Summit, Gorbachev observed that ‘The rhetoric in Warsaw screams of an intention to practically declare war on Russia. They only talk about defense, but in fact they are preparing an offensive’.
    (See https://www.rt.com/news/350434-nato-war-russia-warsaw/ .)
    In some key respects, although not in others, Western policy has totally vindicated the ‘hard-liners’: it is clear that Gorbachev and his advisers were gullible fools.
    It is at least possible that this would limit Putin’s room for manoeuvre, even if he himself wanted to shrug off the threat from Western ABM, which I somewhat doubt he does.

  111. Tyler says:

    Alas that may all be true, but ‘incorrect’ is not among them.

  112. Fred says:

    Exactly. They have plenty of help from the SJW crowd.

  113. Jill says:

    I watched the video where Clinton is supposedly experiencing a seizure. Did you watch the full video at normal speed? It was a joking physical response to being repeatedly asked the same question about VP pick and Elizabeth Warren. The comment about the cold chai is a joking deflection of a repeat of the same question. There is nothing to suggest seizure. I base this opinion on eight years experience as an EEG tech and lab supvr at a teaching hospital. Just an opinion based on watching the full video at normal speed and relatively long experience observing various types of seizures. Whatever problems she might have, nothing is demonstrated in the video.

  114. rjj says:

    that (infiltrate, control, influence centers) reminds me. one of the odd cult-like terms that turned up on one of the DNC emails was citizen-servant leader. Looked it up on The Google and got a million hits. Am I the only one who had never heard of Servant Leadership Movement?

  115. Lord Curzon says:

    Re Neville Chamberlain, this should prove informative:

  116. optimax says:

    Disagree with me and I will destroy you. 🙂

  117. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater to Old Microbiologist,
    I read that European Union Times artice some time back. I, too, wondered about it. The article alleges that from GRU reports Commander Job W. Price is known to have taken a group of SEALS from his command, SEAL TEAM 4, and to have flown from Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan, to the Naval Support Activity at Manama, Bahrain, where the security team boarded a plane which carried, among others, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to a secret meeting with high Iranian officials at the city of Ahvaz, Iran. There was an accident upon landing and Commander Price was killed. Hillary Clinton was removed, unconscious, and bleeding, from the plane wreckage. Others were injured.
    When did this happen? No specific date is given, but by my calculation from the estimates given (“three weeks ago”) it should have happened in the time-frame of early December, I think it is fair to estimate Dec. 8-12, 2012.
    The official reports are that Hillary Clinton suffered a fall which led to her hospitalization for a blood clot on December 30, 2012, after a follow-up examination revealed it; this fall happened some time in early December, 2012. You might say that it happened between December 8-12, 2012.
    That would be good for the secret mission theory. Same time-frame. Except for one problem. Commander Price killed himself in Afghanistan on the night of December 21, 2012. On January 19, 2016, Nicholas Kulish and Christopher Drew published in the New York Times “A Deadly Deployment, a Navy SEAL’S Despair.” This is a very good and thorough article which shows, among other things, just how bad things were then in certain central parts of Afghanistan in a province north and west of Kandahar and below Kabul.
    But what interests me is that the article also gives enough details on what was going on with SEAL TEAM 4 in early December, 2012, to definitely put to rest the idea that Commander Price and his SEALS had anything at all to do with providing VIP security for a secret mission that required them to go outside of Afghanistan. It should be remembered that “agents from the US Naval Criminal Investigative Service interviewed dozens of aides, friends and relatives over the next year and a half before a Navy death review board concluded that Commander Price had killed himself.”
    In early December, Commander Price’s Ex-O and four other officers and enlisted men attempted to stage an intervention, trying to get him to get more sleep, and to face the fact that he was rapidly going to pieces, becoming withdrawn, fatigued, dehydrated, and suffering a “nagging infection.” His adviser on Afghan tribal affairs told investigators “I personally wondered if he was at a breaking point.”
    But where was he all through the first half of December? After the documented interventon there was an inspection tour by the top SEAL admiral, Vice Adm. Sean A. Pybus and Captain Robert E. Smith, who “noticed nothing out of the ordinary.” Commander Price’s men protected him, it would seem. This offical visit took place from December 7-9. Commander Price was very busy in these days, touring outposts with his superiors, explaining the situation, which was not at all good. The word was that the SEALs were going to be withdrawn from Afghanistan in the near future. The inspection party seems to have left Commander Price with the idea that he was to receive some blame for the four deaths which had happened under his command.
    Then, there are infirmary records. On December 13, the visitors gone, Commander Price was prescribed 15 tablets of Valium for anxiety and stress. “Four days later, he went to the clinic complaining of dehydration and was given two 500-millimeter bags of saline. He asked the medics not to document the visit in his medical record.”
    He killed himself on December 21, 2012. Events then –which would include his movements leading up to his suicide– have now been thoroughly documented. There is a detailed Time-Frame, of records and interviews. Interestingly, Price’s Ex-O stated to investigators that every day of December up to the twenty-first he expressed grave concern to Price, his commanding officer and friend, about his mental condition. It is a simple impossibility that Commander Price or some members of the SEAL TEAM 4 stationed in Oruzgan Province could have been on board a plane that crashed in Iran.
    Further, I would argue that that is not the way a security detachment would be joined up with such an important mission. The security element would have been on the plane when it left the United States and stayed close to the people they were protecting every step of the way.
    I don’t believe that Hillary Clinton was injured in this alleged plane crash on a secret mission to Iran. I think she fell down in her own house. Why did she fall? That is a question that is not going to go away. And something else is going to happen. Soon.

  118. Valissa says:

    What a delightfully and hilariously insightful bit of satire 🙂 Thanks so much for the link!

  119. Fred says:

    DIdn’t Bratton start “broken windows” policing which lead to stop and frisk? Didn’t he get canned by de Bllasio because he wanted to repeat the process to cut NYC’s current crime rate?

  120. ked says:

    just add up the cases & make a choice…
    want someone who’s connected to the outside world, or one who takes the complete asshole path first & foremost?
    everyone has some asshole in ’em… but do ya want a World Champion as prez?
    frankly, I note there is a not-small-number of Trump supporters (who aren’t merely ignorant) that want him ’cause they’ve gone nihilist &/or identify personally & greatly with His Very Assholeness. Never liked either… in the case of Supreme Asshole, I vote against or abstain.

  121. Oyinbonamugu says:

    election.princeton.edu – great track record of predicting elections. Forget Reddit – it’s filled with clueless internet keyboard warriors.
    Trump doesn’t want to be President. He is throwing the game. That should be obvious. If you don’t see it – you are the type easily conned.

  122. Tyler says:

    LMBO “lab tech and EEG tech”. Really? That’s your argument from authority? How much patient care outside of your narrow protocols did you do?
    As a paramedic (one who actually does patient care), this looks like a focal motor seizure to me.

  123. Tyler says:

    I think its a focal motor seizure from the stroke she had where she gave herself a “concussion” from falling and she vanished for a few days.
    I can’t imagine the state of her vascular system.

  124. Tyler says:

    If you believe any of this you are smoking rock.
    Keep hand wringing.

  125. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater to Jill,
    No, I think it was a myoclonic seizure. Please see epilepsy.com which is sponsored by the Epilepsy Foundation. Remember that Hillary Clinton suffered traumatic brain injury in 2012, and it did not heal and led her into post traumatic brain injury syndrome with its nightmare side-effects, such as insomnia, and emotional imbalance–something that is supposed to be endured for two years by a patient who is functioning during this time at a significently reduced cognitive and physical level. And then it goes away. Perhaps some of Hillary Clinton’s distress during the post-traumatic brain injury syndrome period did indeed go away, that she did heal somewhat. But this video raises the obvious question, is it possible that the brain injury direction is leading into post-traumatic seizure (PTE)?
    I might add to Harry that the Zapruder film was also inconclusive. But useful.

  126. Erik von Reis says:

    Bill’s speech at several points seemed to say he thought she was too old for the job. He’d know better than most.

  127. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I, too, believe there will not be a Trump administration. Rather than speculate about what might be in the future I’ll try to project what could have been, but has been foreclosed by his failure to recognize and take advantage of the opportunity presented by Khizr Khan’s speech at the Democratic Party Convention. After acknowledging and commiserating with the Khan family’s grief and praising their son’s service he could have continued thus:
    “Mr. Khan is right when he says that there are millions of Muslims already in this country who are solid citizens or on track to become such. But the foreign policies that have been driven by Hilary Clinton and others have created a situation in which our actions abroad are radicalizing not only Muslims elsewhere, but also some who are American citizens, while at the same time not achieving their intended objectives. Once our policies become based on the interests of ALL the American people rather than just the few very wealthy and their hangers-on, the chaos abroad that our current policies incite will diminish, and the resultant radicalization of Muslims here and abroad will also decline. In the meantime we need to be much more rigorous when screening the people we let into this country. Mr. Khan’s anger could be more usefully directed at those who advocate policies that put the lives of the men and women in our armed services at risk by sending them off on fool’s errands, rather than those who try to bring attention to the need to change those policies.”
    A response of this sort could have made it all but impossible to ignore the elephant in the corner of the room, namely the dysfunctional USA foreign policies in place for the past thirty plus years.

  128. Jill says:

    Yes, 8 years as an EEG tech and I assume you know that the great majority of that work is with seizure patients. Lab, as in EEG lab. I’ve observed thousands of different types of seizures both evoked and spontaneously occurring. In addition, I have a brother who has post traumatic seizures that range from grand mal to focal. I did not claim authority but did cite eight years observing seizures. Otherwise, my clinical experience lies in cardiothoracic and transplant surgery. I doubt this abbreviated CV will meet your high standards but I tend to think my opinion based on a brief video is at least as valid as most others.

  129. Tyler says:

    One person with zero business acumen holding proof from another fool with zero business acumen with an axe to grind.
    Show us how many zeroes are in your bank account, oh wise one.

  130. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater to Tidewater,
    I know I saw something.
    Tyler uses the term “Focal motor seizure.” This is new terminology. According to Wiki, formerly it was called a “partial seizure.”
    This is important. In petit mal or grand mal seizure the whole brain shuts down. Have seen grand mal myself once. The person was completely incapacitated and on the floor, in spasms. Nearly biting off tongue. Have seen a bit of video showing petit mal. (Youtube.) In petit mal the patient seemed deeply preoccupied, was conscious, but couldn’t really function. Couldn’t say what was happening or how he felt, though he was questioned for forensic purposes. The description “focal seizure” means that it involved only a part of the brain, and not the brain “generally” as in grand mal.
    I think Hillary Clinton has had these seizures before. She has a plan in place to try to disguise them. She knows it will be transitory, that she will not lose consciousness (at least at this stage), and she can try to use deception. When Old Microbiologist and Jill say either that she is using a poor acting technique or is laughing off a tedious question about Elizabeth Warren, I will agree that acting, poor acting, has been involved. I also suspect that anyone who has seen the video should wait a while and then go back and watch again, particularly noting the first five or six seconds again closely at normal speed, on the video that is frontal, not the video shot from “Sam’s” side, who is beside and a little behind Hillary. Then comes the second phase of the incident, when she is rational, conscious, aware that she needs to disguise this, and all the while her brain which has been stunned, is rapidly recovering, though her thoughts are still confused. (If she had been questioned in the next five minutes by reporters instead of being hustled away, that would have been the best evidence. It was blocked by bad acting and by quick response of her Minders. (There must be a lot of people around Hillary who know the truth. She is like a Roman emperor who is barking mad from incest and lead drinking utensils who is protected by a Praetorian Guard. The acting, as of an old diva, is the second phase of the incident. To me she shows, in this second phase, shockingly unnatural body movements. The first was an episode where she was for seconds almost helpless; in the “bobble”. The body movements in the first phase and in the second are quite different. Interesting: heroin addicts call that moment when they first “buck the needle” and then inject the mixture of blood and heroin into a vein as “going into the nod.” I have seen it done from upclose and seen the result. Also incapacitation. But intimations of immortality.
    Hillary was incapacitated only for seconds. But what does this signify?
    I have read quickly into some highly speculative blogs. One could be found under “Is Hillary Having Seizures, Due to Amygdala Insuffiency?” This posted on July 23, 2016, by Anonymous Conservative.
    He quotes from Free Republic’s discussion: “If anything it would be stimulus sensitive myoclonus. “It is triggered by a variety of external events, including noise, movement, and light. Surprise may increase the sensitivity of the individual…” [ed. note–sudden noise, movement, light, and surprise are all amygdala stimulents, and Hillary was under the lights of the cameras, with phones invading her space, as the reporter on the left locked eye contact, and suddenly she was hit with surprise and noise.] So Hillary may have restricted blood flow to the brain mildly with an iced drinnk. Then she was placed under the mild amygdala strain of the interview, invasion of space and cameras. Once her amygdala was so loaded, she experienced a startle stimuli, involving noise, suddeness,and surprise which startled her, surged her amygdala into action, and triggered what appears to be a minor series of uncontrolled muscle spasms.”
    Grace L. contributes a series of comments which are interesting. She knows whereof she speaks. She has epilepsy. She seems to be in agreement with Tyler.
    She writes: “Speaking from personal experience, some parts of the Hillary incident look like a focal seizure. Right before the bobble she’s having speech issues, then she goes blank. Possible simple seizure, which often precedes a larger one (complex partial). The bobble? It’s not a typical sympton but that would depend on where the seizure starts and where it spreads. Then she makes a joke and they take her away. The postictal period after a seizure is a brain reboot. You’re retarded as hell. No way would they want her talking.”
    This is not going away. Remember to thank those who took the trouble to comment on my remarks.

  131. Tyler says:

    You hand waving away this as a focal motor or partial simple makes me question your CV.

  132. ked says:

    your bent towards personalizing everything is a sort of sickness. I would be glad to share validation of my business expertise w/ Col. Lang, but never w/ your sort. I trust you as you to be well-behaved about as much as I do Trump.

  133. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater to Tidewater,
    A correction is in order: I am quoting from the June 22, 2014, Drudge review of Edward Klein’s book “Blood Feud.”
    “To begin with, Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was treated at the State Department’s infirmary and then, at her own insistence, taken to Whitehaven to recover. However, as soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York-Presbyterian Hospital…”
    Klein claims to have gotten information from sources close to the Clintons. A number of Hillary’s health problems are discussed. One is surprising. “A [semi-brutal– my opinion] cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were not normal. Put into layman’s language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way…”
    “…Hillary’s doctors considered performing valve replacement surgery. They ultimately decided against it. Still, before they released Hillary from the hospital, they warned Bill Clinton: “She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life.”
    Perhaps the discussion of valve replacements is a fiction. Bill Clinton, himself, revealed the doctor’s warnings later in an interview.
    One thing. If it is true that a second scan, done out of caution, later in December, 2012, was the one that revealed the “right transverse venous thrombosis” (blood clot), and which led to her hospitalization on December 30, then one might think that it was just as well that Hillary was not put under the stress of heart surgery at this dicey point. I was told, many months after it had been done, by someone who had had valve replacement, that it had not been all that bad–at least in retrospect; it is done routinely, and in my layman’s view it could still be done if it had to be done, on Hillary, even if she should be acting president. And I don’t think it would knock her out of things for all that long a time. Still, things seem to be connected…
    Come to think of it, I don’t feel all that good, myself.

  134. Stephanie says:

    HRC had a cerebral venous thrombosis in 2012. She wore special glasses for some time afterward. She also fainted once that year from dehydration with a resulting concussion, and she is, of course, 68 years old. Clinton’s mother Dorothy survived into her nineties. I presume she’s on blood thinners of some kind. Given the greater age of her opponent, and the less-than-detailed statement from his personal physician, it’s a bit of a wash. Clinton chose Tim Kaine as her running mate in part because his breadth of legislative and executive experience is considerable, with the goal of ensuring that, should anything happen, the transition to the vice president would involve as little trauma as possible under the circumstances. (Consider, in contrast, McCain’s selection of Palin and Bush I’s selection of Quayle.) Republicans have a recent tendency to nominate senior citizens – leaving out Reagan, Dole was 73, McCain was 71.
    My preference would be to have a cutoff age of 65 for any presidential nominee going for a first term, but that’s probably not going to happen.
    Reportedly Trump already plans to hand over much of the heavy cleaning to his running mate, so I guess we can expect a Pence Administration regardless in the event of a Trump victory. Pence is in his fifties, although his ascension is otherwise not terribly reassuring.

  135. Eric Newhill says:

    Sir,I was holding back on this until I could search around a bit. It seems that it is not photo-shopped as many people noticed while watching coverage of Clinton’s acceptance speech and spontaneously twittered, etc. about it.
    So what is it? Nothing good from a health perspective. Some are saying a syphilis sore. Looks like it, but it is hard to accept. Clearly she could have contracted syphilis from Bill if not from her own dalliances. It doesn’t require sex to transmit. Any kind of bodily fluid exchange will do it. It would also explain some of the other alleged symptoms observed, such as spasms/convulsions, mental confusion, exhaustion – but syphilis is very treatable in the early stages. Why wouldn’t she have simply quietly gotten care and been done with it? Perhaps duties at State interfered until it was too late?
    The lesion looks too surgical to me to be a naturally occurring sore. A better explanation is cancer. A growth was removed from her tongue. However the cancer was not isolated to the tongue. It is either currently in – or has been attempted removed – from her throat as well. That explains the rasping voice and coughing fits. Chemo therapy drugs and drugs used to counter chemo side effects can cause a wide spectrum of issues and the fainting, mental confusion and apparent seizures are all within the spectrum.
    A similar, but lesser threat, health-wise, would be STD warts. But I doubt such a large and deep area of tongue tissue would have been impacted. Most likely warts would have be frozen off (but surgical removal is a possible approach under some conditions). The warts would cause the coughing and scratchy voice, but not seizures, etc. Warts of the STD variety can cause cancers. Much ovarian and uterine cancer is said to be strongly associated with them. Herpes is another possibility that does not account for the seizures, etc. nor the surgical looking tongue wound.
    Syphilis explains what we know – but seems an unreasonable conclusion given effective treatments if addressed in the early stages. Cancer, of course, is a different story and would also explain the range of symptoms.
    Might be something else entirely though.

Comments are closed.