Robert Kagan, Washington PostOf the remarkable things we have learned this election year, the most significant is that the current Republican Party is unfit to lead the country. It has failed the greatest test a political leader or party can face, and failed spectacularly. It has abandoned its principles out of a combination of cowardice and opportunism. It has worked to place in the White House the most dangerous threat to U.S. democracy since the Civil War. And perhaps just as revealing, it has in the process engineered its own suicide. Not only has the party refused to save the country, but also it has proved too...
**James Fallows**: _[Trump Time Capsule #108: Bush, Fahrenthold, Kagan]_: >A four-month-old article... by Robert Kagan... [with whom] I disagree... on just about everything... >But in the months since he originally published his essay, called “This Is How Fascism Comes to America,” I think his arguments have come to seem more...
NEW YORK — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's decision to meet separately with Egypt's authoritarian president on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly on Monday has prompted a growing outcry on both the left and the right.On Monday, a small group of scholars and activists with a focus on Egypt, including some who identify has conservatives, released a letter they had written to both presidential candidates urging them not to meet with Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The authors pointed to the thousands killed and tens of thousands imprisoned under Sisi's harsh rule."Since taking power via a military coup three years ago, President Sisi has overseen not only the complete reversal of Egypt’s nascent democratic transition but also unprecedented human rights abuses," states the letter. "It is not in our interest to embrace him but to use our influence to press for beneficial change in Egypt." The letter, dated Friday, further states: "Your meeting with Sisi at the UNGA will be taken in Egypt, and around the world, as an endorsement. To meet with him is a policy decision, which should await a later date after much study and assessment of U.S. policy toward Egypt. Therefore, we strongly urge you to readjust your schedule."The signatories were: Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution; Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Reuel Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; Neil Hicks of Human Rights First; and Stephen McInerny of Project on Middle East Democracy. The letter writers are part of a non-partisan working group on Egypt that has been meeting since 2010, according to Kagan. Their criticism follows that of others including Human Right Watch's executive director Ken Roth, who wrote on Twitter: "Why does Hillary again want to meet Sisi? He directed 817+ killed in 12 hours in Rabaa Sq" — a reference to a massacre in a Cairo square under Sisi's watch in 2013.Trump was said to be planning to meet with Sisi on Monday morning, but his aides did not respond to requests for a summary of the parley. Clinton's meeting was set for later Monday.Sisi, a retired general, came to prominence during the chaos of Egypt's 2011 Arab Spring revolution. He took power in 2013 after mass protests prompted the military to oust the elected government of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi.Trump has said that if elected president, he will work with Sisi to fight terrorism, describing him in a speech as someone who recognizes that "this ideology of death that must be extinguished." Clinton is critical of Sisi's predecessor Morsi, who was arrested after his ouster and now faces a death sentence, in Hard Choices her State Department memoir.But she also criticizes Sisi, who she wrote "appears to be following the classic mold of Middle Eastern strongmen."Clinton's decision to meet with Sisi could stem from a desire to signal to Arab allies in the region that she will partner with rulers who impose stability, even if those rulers are autocrats.
David Rieff Security, Americas America can no longer do whatever it wants, wherever it wants. Assuming Hillary Clinton wins in November (if Donald Trump wins, all bets are off for we will be in uncharted territory, perhaps even the Bermuda Triangle, in both domestic and international policy), the issue of U.S. primacy will reappear with a vengeance. To her credit, both as secretary of state and as a presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton has not made much of her foreign-policy differences with Barack Obama. But it is fairly obvious what she would have done differently, most notably: intervened aggressively in Syria, built up U.S. forces in Iraq far more quickly than Obama did, and been much more confrontational with Russia over Ukraine and the Baltic states. In contrast, given that Obama succeeded in getting his universal health-care plan through Congress, which had been Mrs. Clinton’s “signature” issue in the first two years of her husband’s first term, there are not many major reforms that she can undertake (gun control, the most obvious one, remaining in my view a political nonstarter). Whether she will keep her word to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there is nothing in her past to suggest that she is any less of a liberal interventionist than she has been since the mid-1990s. The “national greatness” conservatives such as Robert Kagan and Max Boot who have already endorsed her see this clearly. So Mrs. Clinton will come into office with virtually the entire U.S. foreign-policy elite, liberal interventionist and neoconservative alike, having strongly backed her. The differences between the two wings of the policy establishment were never as pronounced as it sometimes appeared during George W. Bush’s first term. Though even while Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged that she was wrong to back the invasion of Iraq in 2003, if not quite Blairite, her support was certainly enthusiastic. And if she has changed her views since, and become more cautious about what foreign wars in the name of democracy can achieve, well, so have many of the neoconservatives who have come round to supporting her. Read full article
In the month since the conventions, the jittery surface of the 24-hour news cycle has been roiled by crosscurrents, its avatars trumpeting each new event as more dramatic than the last. But beneath there is a sickly stillness of a candidacy mired in the swampland of Donald Trump's own mind, creating a numbing ennui seeping through the electorate like encephalitis in slow motion. Too many Americans have realized who he is. The contrast between the dystopia of Cleveland -- four midnights in America -- and the competence of Philadelphia left him trailing badly. But something worse had happened to Trump himself: instead of provoking excitement, he was inducing fear and stupefaction. True, his lies come so quickly that none has meaning in itself. But the larger meaning comes through -- Trump's every statement has no meaning but Trump himself. To call him a liar is to assume deliberation in a man who cares nothing about the words he speaks beyond whether they serve him in the moment. Such people are not merely frightening -- they are exhausting. With 10 weeks to go, he seems no more thoughtful or capable then he did during the primaries, when all he had to do was inflame a plurality of inflammable Republicans. The only difference is that, fearful of defeat, he reads more often from a Teleprompter, proving nothing but that he has the basic literacy to recite the simplistic sentences others write for him. Beneath his fantastical promises, he still has no coherent vision of America. In short, Trump has no program but Trump. He may have changed his management team, but he cannot change himself. The larger audience of the general electorate is on to this, and it worries them. They sense that the real man -- the only man Trump values -- resides in his spontaneous utterances. And those betray the stunted soul who lives within Trump 3.0. In short, Trump has no program but Trump. He may have changed his management team, but he cannot change himself. That is why his attack on the Khan family -- a far more egregious and persistent lapse than Mitt Romney's 47% moment -- lingers in the mind. His stunning lack of empathy, particularly for Mrs. Khan, was bad enough. Add lack of judgment -- a normal man would not disparage the parents of a dead American soldier. And, even worse, throw in his whiny claim that he was "viciously attacked." He kept after this for four days, asserting on his own behalf that his pursuit of billions "involved a lot of sacrifices" -- though not, perhaps, quite as wounding as losing a son or, even more precious, his own life. But we swiftly learned that Trump was never at risk of this, having secured a medical deferment during Vietnam -- a safe harbor he falsely attributed to a high lottery number. Another man might have maintained a graceful silence. But then another man would not try to recover his footing by accepting a Purple Heart from a veteran, then braying that this was a "much easier" way of acquiring one than actually getting wounded in the service of his country. That's the thing. The principal truth emanating from Trump's mouth is the depressing revelation of Trump's character. As with all the months before, August was replete with such defining moments. The difference is that more Americans are watching Trump more closely. And what they see disqualifies him -- not just as a leader, but as a man. Instead of reaching out to Republican officeholders worried about his candidacy, he disparaged them. But this was as nothing to the several days he spent insisting that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the "founders" of ISIS, praising himself as a "truth teller" before retreating, under pressure, to the claim that he was merely being "sarcastic." Whatever he was being, it was not presidential. Asked about sexual harassment, he opined that should his own daughter be victimized, "I would like to think she would find another career or find another company..." Startling -- until one remembered that Trump defended Roger Ailes against charges of serial harassment worthy of Bill Cosby, questioning the motives of some of Ailes's accusers. But this is standard fare, for Trump's search for the bottom is bottomless. Having begun the month by attacking the Khans, he ended it by exploiting the separation of Hillary Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin, from the troubled Anthony Weiner -- suggesting that Weiner had access to classified information from the State Department. His grounds? There are none. For Trump, gratuitous cruelty to others is just another opportunity to get the attention he craves. This ugly verbal incontinence has a way of turning sinister. Hence his suggestion that "the Second Amendment people" could find a way to prevent Hillary Clinton from appointing judges they don't like -- a casual recycling of the violent right-wing trope that "Second Amendment remedies" may be needed to address some imaginary federal overreach. Thus, too, the rancid undertone of his commentary on race, religion or ethnicity. Not to mention an ingredient which, in its own way, is equally disturbing -- the sense that his statements in any given moment, while revealing his inherent bigotry and irresponsibility, stem from nothing deeper than the pursuit of personal advantage. Speaking in Maine, he offended locals of all races by groundlessly portraying peaceful Somali immigrants to the area as sources of crime and potential terrorism. Having used every possible avenue to stoke fear of illegal Mexican immigrants, he briefly extended a supposed olive branch: after polling a town hall audience on how to treat them -- an appalling exercise in itself -- he implied that maybe, after all, he would not empower a deportation force to kick out all 11 million. 24 hours later he reversed himself in a near incoherent babble to Anderson Cooper, the essence of which was that his position had not changed at all. People noticed. Ever more, his bewildering blizzards of words on all subjects have exposed the ignorance and vacuity at his core, creating a sense among voters that there is nobody home. Even his purported outreach to African-Americans -- delivered to a crowd of white folks in an obvious effort to mollify white suburbanites -- was riddled with condescension and inaccuracy and suffused with racial stereotyping: "You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?" One can start with any hope of a responsible dialogue about race. Trump"s "alt-right" view of African-Americans -- so effectively skewered by Hillary Clinton -- decamps from reality. By any historic measure our cities are safer. Despite the stubborn scourge of our racial history, more black Americans are doing better, and few recognize their communities -- however grave their difficulties -- in the bleak "war zones" that Trump describes. To be sure, the devastating portrait he paints is about something real: not the lives of black people, but about how Donald Trump has always seen black people. To the extent that he sees them -- or anyone else but himself -- at all. Over the weekend, the cousin of NBA star Dwayne Wade was randomly killed in Chicago by gunfire while walking her baby. Trump responded with a particularly odious tweet: "Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP " -- neatly exemplifying his insensitivity to personal tragedy and to black Americans as a whole. Among increasing numbers of Americans, the overall effect is boredom and fatigue -- akin to listening to a cretinous uncle, deep in his cups as he spoils Thanksgiving dinner, spouting ignorant racial theories made even more dispiriting by the certainty that he shares them with his friends. All that jolts one out of stultitude is that Trump wants his friends to make him president. Equally noxious is his appeal to racism as a means of delegitimizing the general election in advance. "I'm telling you," Trump forecasts, "November 8 we'd better be careful because that election is going to be rigged." Though this line has a long history in the authoritarian playbook, its most recent antecedent is Republican voter suppression laws targeting minorities and the poor, rationalized as a shield against electoral fraud which is statistically nonexistent. To Trump's noisy displeasure, courts across the country are striking down these laws as unwarranted and unconstitutional. So Trump has escalated by proposing voter suppression vigilante-style: encouraging squads of supporters to show up at polling places to identify suspect voters. One need not be a cynic to appreciate that the means of identification will involve, to put it gently, pigmentation. The most immediate effect of this is likely to be race-based violence and intimidation. But just as corrosive is Trump's cynical effort to excuse defeat by eroding confidence in our electoral process -- in this case, because "the other" has stolen the election from his followers in collusion with government in key states. This is classic Trump, a cocktail of racism, paranoia and social grievance, spiked with his own moral bankruptcy. The residue will resemble the birther movement in its damage to our societal glue -- the feverish belief among a subset of Americans that Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, is not a legitimate president. But there are conspirators enough to satisfy anyone with a grudge. Trump tells us that "if the media covered me honestly and didn't put false meaning in the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20 percent." It is, indeed unfair for journalists to quote him. And so, ever presidential, he tweets gossip about the romantic relationship of two of his perceived enemies -- regulars on Morning Joe. Every time one's nausea passes, Trump revives it. Even the world of science is suspect and corrupt. Vaccines cause autism -- despite all evidence to the contrary. Global warming is a fiction created by the Chinese to sandbag our coal and petroleum industries. And, no kidding, regulations to protect the ozone layer diminish the quality of his hairspray. This might be funny save that one function of a president is -- or should be -- to nurture science which enhances and saves lives. Once again, Trump spreads ignorance to advance his favorite and only cause -- himself. A particularly disturbing compound of lies, stupidity, self-delusion and self-interest fuels Trump's vacuous commentary on Vladimir Putin. Start with the foundational falsehood: Trump's stunning claim in 2014 that "I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer." Or his assertion in a November, 2015 GOP debate that "I got to know [Putin] very well because we were both on '60 Minutes.'" Six-year-olds are allowed to conjure imaginary friends. But not presidential candidates. It is beyond dispute -- as Trump has now been forced to admit -- that he and Putin have never met or even spoken. Even more bizarre is that Trump seems to imagine that the rest of us share his incapacity to separate fiction from reality -- and thus that no one would notice, for example, that 60 Minutes taped its interviews with Trump in New York and Putin in Moscow. But his obsession with Putin transcends the merely fantastical, raising serious questions about our national security. He publicly encouraged the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's email. And, quite clearly, he is the intended beneficiary of hacking against the Democratic National Committee performed, experts believe, by Russian intelligence, resulting in emails siphoned through Wikileaks to damage Clinton's campaign. One must wonder why Putin takes such an apparent interest in making Trump our commander-in-chief. Could it be, just maybe, that this serves Putin's interests? Trump's ignorance surely does. Questioned by George Stephanopoulos as to why the GOP platform softened its stance on defending the Ukraine against Russian aggression, Trump said of Putin, "He's not going into Ukraine, okay, just so you understand." Astonished, Stephanopoulos rejoined, "Well, he's already there, isn't he?", compelling a clearly mystified Trump to fudge with, "Okay, well, he's there in a certain way..." That certain way, as any Ukrainian could tell him, includes the annexation of Crimea and insinuation of Russian troops and military hardware into that part of the country which remains. But not to worry, Trump said -- "From what I've heard [the Crimeans] would rather be with Russia than where they were." The origins of this insight went unmentioned, though one possible source is his erstwhile campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who has raked in millions advising a pro-Russian autocrat who was formerly president of the Ukraine. Elsewhere, to Putin's larger benefit, Trump has declared NATO to be "obsolete," and questioned the principle that an attack on one member state is an attack on all. Indeed, Trump's partiality for Putin partakes of callousness -- and not just toward Russia's external victims. He described Putin to Joe Scarborough as a "leader, unlike what we have in this country," fusing fondness for his imaginary friend Vladimir with an unseemly taste for authoritarianism. When Scarborough countered that Putin "kills journalists that don't agree with him," Trump blithely responded, "Well, I think our country does a lot of killing also, Joe." Of journalists? Such moral and intellectual vacancy is a boon to cold-blooded men like Vladimir Putin. This is classic Trump, a cocktail of racism, paranoia and social grievance, spiked with his own moral bankruptcy. But perhaps, by pandering to Putin, Donald Trump is also looking out for himself. I have it on good authority that Trump can no longer get financing from American banks. There is no doubt that, under Putin's auspices, he could do much better in Russia -- if he has not done so already. Which may be one reason, among many, to conceal his tax returns. Whatever the case, highly placed Russian officials have openly welcomed the prospect of a President Trump. No mystery here -- if anyone knows how to exploit ignorance and egotism, it is surely Vladimir Putin. Which is why Michael Morell, a former acting director of the CIA, has characterized Trump as an unwitting agent of Russia. Given the cacophony surrounding Trump, his affinity for Putin has stolen but imperfectly into the national consciousness. Still, it is already seeding doubt. And August is the month when more Americans became fearful of Trump as commander-in-chief. Nowhere is presidential latitude broader, and the risks greater, than in the conduct of foreign policy and the exercise of military power. The opportunities to take ill-advised and unilateral actions are legion -- abandoning allies, scrapping treaties and trade deals, arbitrarily barring all immigration from friendly European countries and, of course, lighting the powder keg of the Middle East. The latter threat, at least, is something that Americans get. But nothing focuses our collective mind like the specter of nuclear war. Thus it is striking that the prospect of President Trump has provoked a broad discussion of the chief executive's power to go nuclear. The alarming consensus is articulated by nuclear expert Franklin C. Miller: "The president and only the president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons." Perhaps the most effective ad run by the Clinton campaign in August addresses the danger of Trump's stubby fingers on our nuclear codes. And given his behavior -- this month, and every month -- more Americans are recoiling from the thought. Just as, more and more, ever more Americans are disturbed by the ugliness Trump is stirring among his followers, and fear what might transpire should, as president, his narcissism morph into authoritarian behavior. They notice that his "solutions" are simplistic -- and frequently divisive. They notice that his idea of "winning" involves degrading all who displease him. They notice his indifference to fact, and his addiction to conspiracy theories. They notice his appeal to anger and fear. They notice his reflexive recourse to images of violence. And they notice, above all, that his hard-core supporters are aroused by these traits. Many other Americans are fearful or angry, and still more are worried about where we are headed. But they are worried, as well, about the spirit a President Trump might unleash in the land. Whatever their misgivings about the present, or the leadership of Hillary Clinton, they are unwilling to risk electing Donald Trump. Or to live with his image in their living rooms. More and more voters notice his indifference to the people around him, or even to the words he is given to read from a Teleprompter. They notice a simple lack of interest in anyone other than himself. They notice that Trump evaluates others -- for good or ill -- based solely on whether they flatter him. They notice, in short, that Trump lacks the humanizing attributes of a normal human being. That is lethal. Because August is the month when concern about Trump's mental state went mainstream. For the first time in recent memory, a candidate's pattern of behavior -- sustained for 14 months now -- made his psychological health the subject of serious and considered public discussion. That is why -- merely as one small example -- his continued railing against the Khan family became so unsettling. It was not merely his lack of empathy. It was that he could not let it go -- and lacked even the self-control to pretend to let it go. This is not the psyche of a man who should be president. For a good while, those of us who said so were a distinct minority of commentators, running afoul of the understandable journalistic reluctance to speak to a candidate's emotional stability. For many, this was a matter of ethics. But, at last, Trump's behavior swept all that away. And so in August, in varying ways, some of our most prominent pundits across the ideological spectrum expressed fears about Trump's mental fitness to be president: David Brooks, Eugene Robinson, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, Joe Scarborough and Robert Kagan. And, with annihilating thoroughness, Keith Olbermann spelled out in Vanity Fair how perfectly Trump's otherwise inexplicable conduct matches up with the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Americans as a whole do not keep the DSM at their fingertips. But they do have instincts which, unlike Trump's, stem from their experience in noticing other human beings. August was the month that a critical mass of Americans noticed that Donald Trump notices nothing but himself. Fateful. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
БЕРЛИН – Большая часть история Европы – это вооружённые конфликты. В 2003 году американский историк Роберт Каган писал, что «американцы с Марса, а европейцы с Венеры», но на протяжении столетий Европа была домом для римского бога войны, а не богини любви.Венера обрела свой дом в Европе лишь после Вт…
American presidential politics is always a contact sport. The stakes are invariably so high that being polite to the opposition is normally difficult, and is often honored only in the breach. The 2012 "there is a village in Kenya that is missing its idiot" bumper sticker offended me at the time for its ongoing birtherism and for its underlying racism; but I was obliged to remember its earlier and softer equivalent when George W. Bush was President -- the one about the existence of a similar village problem in Texas. So, in that election cycle at least, I had to cut Republican supporters a certain degree of slack. But this time round, the bumper stickers are worse -- often much worse -- and they are in large measure because in 2016 conservative animosity to both the current and likely next president is so intense. The 2016 election cycle is fueled by a level of anger in and around the base of the Republican Party that is way in excess of any thing found in Republican circles in 2012. It is also an anger that has no parallel in and around the base of the Democratic Party. It is true that, as a party, the Democrats in 2016 remain divided. There are still many disgruntled Sanders supporters out there who are frustrated with Hillary Clinton; but that frustration does not stretch out to any equivalent fury with their Republican opponents. The Republicans in convention in Cleveland were full of anger and despair at the current state of American domestic and foreign policy. The Democrats in Philadelphia were not; and that difference between the two parties is now coloring the way in which each party is approaching the clash between candidates as the general election approaches. Driving through West Virginia earlier this August, I followed a truck bedecked in confederate insignia, with a bumper sticker that read: "Donald Trump to the White House. Hillary Clinton to the Jail House. Bernie Sanders to the Nut House. Barack Obama to the Out-House." The ugliness of that message, and the underlying hostility to leading Democrats that it reflected, shook me into a new realization -- the realization of just how dangerous are the times in which we now live -- and it made me fearful (and not just worried) about the outcome of election in November. I find myself afraid of what might follow if Donald Trump actually wins in November, and equally fearful of what might follow if he loses. I recall no such fears in 2012, or in 2008, or even in the tightly-fought presidential election that Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. The big difference this time appears to be the presence of Donald Trump himself. The content of his campaign, and of his style of campaigning, is bringing qualitatively new and deeply troubling issues into the center of American politics, and is raising new dangers for all of us, regardless of whether we actually support him or not. Those dangers need to be recognized, and addressed, before their impact is too embedded to be reversed: hence what follows. I There is a pattern in the developing story of the Trump campaign that has moved me, and many other progressives whom I know, from a state of "indifference and irritation" to that of "anxiety and fear." The pattern has the following stages. • Progressive indifference and irritation was initially simply a response to the series of ludicrous and over-blown claims with which Donald Trump began his campaign. As I'm sure we all remember, from the very outset of his pursuit of the presidency, Donald Trump presented himself as poised to become the greatest ever -- the "greatest jobs president that God ever created," the greatest builder of a border wall ("nobody builds walls better than me,"), the greatest negotiator of new trade agreements, and so on. Indifference seemed to be a legitimate first response to all that self-promotion, because it was hard to imagine that Republican primary voters would take such hyperbolic promises seriously. But indifference increasingly gave way to irritation when support for Trump grew in Republican circles. Indifference gave way to irritation too when, in order to justify his promise to make "America Great Again", Donald Trump regularly talked America down; regularly blamed all contemporary ills on the Obama Administration in general and on Hillary Clinton in particular; and regularly left the impression that previous Republican presidents, and the current Republican Party, held no responsibility for the bleakness of the America that Donald Trump claimed that he, and he alone, could lift to glory again. Irritation, that is, triggered by the unique Trump combination of narcissism and distorted history. • That level of irritation and outrage has intensified over time, precisely because many of the core assertions on which the Trump campaign is built continue to be false. It is not the case, for example, that "crime is going through the roof because of illegal immigration," no matter how often the candidate asserts that it is. It isn't even true that net migration across the southern border is excessive, out-of-control, and in need of a wall -- regardless of who will build and pay for that wall. But facts don't automatically matter in this campaign, because if data gets in the way it is always possible to retreat to one of the many conspiracy theories to which Donald Trump and his supporters have become increasingly prone. In 2011/12, Trump was a leading voice in the birther movement, and the accusation at the heart of that movement has never been more than obliquely denied by him even to this day. For there is a pattern here: of lying and then quietly recanting some of the lies, a pattern that reinforces ignorance and prejudice by working on the premise that the lie, if repeated often enough, will be remembered while the single recantation will be forgotten or ignored. The most recent manifestation of that pattern is a case in point. Donald Trump insisted repeatedly in early August that Barack Obama actually founded ISIS. He even doubled-down on the claim when first challenged by a conservative radio host keen to provide him with a retreat route; only quietly to repackage the claim as "sarcasm" when the doubling-down failed to bite. There is an indifference to evidence, a scorn for experts, and a propensity for paranoia at the very heart of the Trump campaign, all of which does not augur well for the quality and veracity of any Trump Administration should such a phenomenon come into existence. • Then there was (and remains) the question of Donald Trump's past as a businessman and what that tells us about his potential as a President. He likes to present himself as an outsider to the Washington establishment and as the champion of the underdog, as the man who knows how to make businesses work, and how to end the adverse consequences of outsourcing. His own personal story is, however, in considerable tension with those claims. Donald Trump began his working life with a huge injection of cash from his father. He built a business empire partly on outsourcing, partly on exploiting the post-2008 housing problems of less financially-cushioned Americans, and partly on the full use of existing bankruptcy laws. The university he created has been widely criticized as a scam; and as a controversial business figure Donald Trump has often been the subject of substantial damage claims pursued in the courts. It is hard to think of Donald Trump as the champion of small business owners when in the past bankruptcies have protected his wealth at the expense of certain of his small-scale creditors; and it hard for him credibly to criticize outsourcing when products bearing his name have been so regularly made abroad. Not that such contradictions automatically stop him. On the contrary, they often do not. There was, for example, that moment of sheer ludicrousness when Donald Trump presented himself as an expert on the national debt and its reduction -- proposing to reduce it by $19 trillion in just eight years -- offering as evidence of that expertise his own capacity to escape debt by the use of American bankruptcy laws, as though personal debt and public debt were simply two forms of the same thing. There was another such moment when Donald Trump presented himself as the best president to end corruption in Washington by emphasizing just how many times his campaign contributions had opened access for him to politicians in Washington! "Poacher turned game-keeper' stories have their place in contemporary fiction, but hardly ought to figure high on the resume of a potential US president. They do, however, for this one. • Among progressives at least, the sense of outrage has grown the more that Donald Trump has demonstrated, by what he has said and by how he has acted, that his mind-set was and is riddled with bigotry. Some of that bigotry is visibly sexist -- his treatment of Megyn Kelly made that clear very early on -- a sexism that his appointment of Roger Ailes as his debate-coach recently reconfirmed. Add to that the racism that pervaded Donald Trump's opening remarks about Mexican immigrants, and his later treatment of the few African-American voters attending his rallies -- not to mention the gross insensitivity of his latest appeal to African-American voters ("vote for me...what have you got to lose?" ) -- and it becomes increasingly obvious why his core support lies in that section of the white working class most hostile to minority rights old and new. Donald Trump may now be willing to apologize in general terms for some of these earlier remarks and actions, but his critique of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, his condemnation of the Khan family, and his anti-Muslim rhetoric and ban all have to be added to the debit side of his bigotry account. Time and again, more seasoned campaigners within his own entourage have urged him to pivot on just this point -- to moderate the substance and presentation of his bigotry -- but pivoting is clearly not Donald Trump's strength. Instead, his remains a powerful voice legitimating a general distrust of Muslim, Hispanic and Black Americans -- with Muslim Americans increasingly treated by his predominantly white working-class base as a threat to core American values and security, and Hispanic Americans treated as disproportionately prone to sexual violence, illegal entry and the undercutting of American wages. • Perhaps some of this would matter less if Donald Trump had not also surrounded himself with some highly problematic characters, and been so slow and reluctant to distance himself from some of the more racist and bigoted of his followers. His initial response to the support given by David Duke -- "I don't know the guy. I don't believe I've ever met him" -- lacked credulity, and gave succor to those on the white nationalist right who now see in Trump an avenue to greater influence in Washington. His choice of senior figures -- and the regularity with which they are then shed -- does not augur well for either the expertise or the stability of any incoming Trump Administration; especially given the dubious background of several key advisors. You have only to think of the Ukrainian-links of Paul Manafort, not to mention the Breitbart News background of Stephen Bannon, to see a propensity here for the pursuit of advice from the darker corners of the broad Republican coalition. Donald Trump himself has admitted a partiality for strong political leaders abroad -- Vladimir Putin in particular has figured regularly in this litany, but so too briefly did Saddam Hussein -- all of which feeds into a fear, in less conservative circles, that Donald Trump has a propensity for authoritarianism that might put him in tension with basic principles of the American constitution. As recently as last March, if the data in a HuffPost/YouGov poll are correct, half the US electorate already saw "fascist overtones" in Donald Trump's campaign, and that half included 45 percent of Independents and a full 28% of Republican voters. • Some of those who know Donald Trump best are on record as doubting his suitability to be President, cited issues of character and mental stability. Robert Kagan, for example, has argued that there is "something very wrong with Donald Trump...that he cannot control himself" and that he "feels he must respond to every criticism he receives by attacking and denigrating the critic, no matter how small and inconsequential." Donald Trump is already on record as advocating waterboarding of terrorist suspects and the carpet bombing of Iraq. Perhaps that was why George Shultz, when asked about the prospect of Trump presidency, simply said "God help us!" It is also perhaps why Robert Kagan was among one of a hundred Republican foreign-policy and national security specialists who wrote an open letter to Donald Trump telling him of their determination to "work energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." Fear of Donald Trump's finger on the nuclear button is certainly why Donald Trump's co-author of The Art of the Deal recently expressed public remorse for helping to promote the career of someone he now calls "a sociopath." And we should all be afraid of that occurrence -- for many have seem such a level of narcissism in the Trump character as to fear that he is already engaged in what David Cohen called stochastic terrorism -- terrorism of the kind that led in an earlier decade and a different place, as Thomas Friedman has argued, to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. For Trump now, like Rabin's critics earlier, is engaged in a campaign to so delegitimize his opponent that should she win in November, he will be able to claim that the election was a fraud and some of his supporters will be able to conclude that -- because the election was stolen -- the victor must not be allowed to prevail. Donald Trump constantly labels his opponent as "crooked Hillary." He constantly urges/allows his crowds to demand that she be jailed; and now he "jokes"(?) about a Second Amendment solution. As David Cohen put it, "Trump puts out the dog whistle knowing that some dog will hear it, even though he doesn't know which dog." • Which brings us to the heart of why some of us are now afraid. For Donald Trump's campaign not only stokes the flames of bigotry in this country, it also stokes the flames of violence in the defense of that bigotry. Examples abound of the belittling labels into which Donald Trump easily settles as a way of demeaning opponents -- a kind of verbal lack of respect that discredits Marco Rubio as "Little Marco," Jeb Bush as "low energy,"" or Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas". Examples abound too of violence at Trump rallies, and of the candidate's own propensity to encourage rough treatment of critics by supporters in his audience: "beating the crap" out of protesters was one of his recommendations, offering to pay the legal fees of anyone "knocking the crap" out of protesters was another. Stories abound of journalists being excluded from attendance at those rallies after writing copy critical of Donald Trump and his campaign: among the most egregious of those was the treatment of Katy Tur. Yet even that pales into insignificance when set against the suggestion by Donald Trump's adviser on veteran affairs that Hillary Clinton "should be put in the firing line and shot for treason;" and Donald Trump's own public speculation that, should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, Second Amendment folks would be left able to stop her stacking the Supreme Court with anti-gun advocates. Leaving aside the fact that no such stacking is likely or planned, it is impossible to ignore the invitation to violence that those remarks contained. Donald Trump may deny any such intention, but in politics at this level words have consequences. He may deny he sent out such an invitation, but some elements in his mobilized and angry base may feel obliged to accept it anyway. That has to be the fear. II The Trump threat to peace abroad and to civil liberties at home is too great to be ignored. The violence beneath the surface of American life to which he is adding fire is too potent a threat to be discarded lightly. And the main responsibility for dousing the flames, before they ignite, has to lie with the rest of the Republican Party, and particularly with its national leadership. For Donald Trump did not invent the strategy of de-legitimating a sitting President. That strategy has been the guiding plank of Republican policy ever since Barack Obama took office. It was Mitch McConnell, after all, who committed his party to making the Obama Administration a one-term phenomenon. The Republican Establishment started this fire, and it needs now to put it out. The Republican Establishment needs to break, even at this late stage, from a candidate who does not embody its values, and whose incipient authoritarianism threatens the democratic rights of us all. The national Republican leadership also needs to make it clear that the up-coming general election is not rigged -- and certainly not rigged against Donald Trump -- and in truth, that shouldn't be too difficult a task for them to do if they are honest, given that any voter suppression currently going on is Republican-inspired. Democrats want the people to vote. It is Republicans who fear minority voting most. This is no time to be partisan. It is time to put the needs of the country first. Vote Republican down the ticket if that is your politics, but do not send this man to the White House. Arguments in this posting have been developed in earlier ones: including • Taking Donald Trump Seriously • How Best to Separate Donald Trump from his Base • Working Class Anger and the Problem of Progressive Politics • The Democrats and the Donald • All at www.davidcoates.net First published, with full academic citations, at www.davidcoates.net -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Oliver Turner, Chengxin Pan Politics, Americas Even the neoconservatives’ opponents have absorbed their assumptions. By any standard, the 2016 U.S. presidential race has been extraordinary. The campaigns of maverick candidates such as Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Ted Cruz gained strong support, and in the end Donald Trump confounded expectations to become the Republican nominee. The underestimated popularity of these political outsiders highlights the depth of ill-feeling on both the right and left towards the so-called Washington establishment. Largely for this reason the main “establishment” candidate, Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, still has a real fight on her hands. Yet, amidst this antiestablishment fervor, one establishment characteristic of American politics and foreign policy is more likely than not to survive: neoconservatism. Beyond Robert Kagan’s statement of support for Clinton, neoconservatives have gone largely unnoticed this time around. Their significance is not entirely ignored; in this publication Michael Lind blames the rise of Trump on neoconservatives themselves, for example. However their vocal absence does not necessarily mean that neoconservatism has passed its use-by date in the United States. In fact, the contrary may be true. Here we use the term neoconservatism not in its conventional and often derogatory sense. Indeed, in a recent academic article we argued that neoconservatism does not simply represent the ideas of a small band of readily identifiable neoconservatives. While Robert Kagan, William Kristol and other notable figures were instrumental to the rise of a particular strand of neoconservatism under the administration of George W. Bush, neoconservatism itself cannot be narrowly defined according to its individual leaders and followers, or their worldviews (which in any case vary between so-called neocons). Nor should it be simply equated with the now-infamous Bush Doctrine and its blueprint for the post–9/11 War on Terror. Read full article
существует незримая связь между выборами президента в сша и внутриполитическим раскладом в рфтрудно сказать как конкретноно перенос выборов в государственную думу рф на осень 2016 странным образом совпадает с избранием президента сшав сша уверенно побеждает хиллари клинтон трамп явно проходная фигура у клинтон классическая технология со ставкой на меньшинствомасоны всегда так организуют выборы вариантов много чёрное меньшинство ортодоксальные евреи бюджетники пенсионеры педерасты самое сильное конечно гендерное расовое религиозное меньшинство как тот же северный кавказ всегда выдаёт по 146%у обамы были чёрные у клинтон женщины феминизированные американские женщинывсе эти скандалы со взломом почты якобы фсб-кгб только добавят клинтон республиканских голосовинтересный момент оказывается нуланд которая грызла обоссаные семечки занимается ситуацией на украине часто посещает москву и встречается там с сурковым и не с ним одним вот она доверенное лицо как раз клинтонЕсли Хиллари придет в Белый дом, Виктория Нуланд будет рядом с нейФилип Джиральди (Philip Giraldi)Позавчера на ветке в Facebook, где я давал свои комментарии, появился вопрос: где Виктория Нуланд? Конечно, короткий ответ заключается в том, что она по-прежнему занимает должность заместителя госсекретаря по европейским и евразийским делам.Но есть и другой связанный с этим вопрос, который требует более пространного ответа: где будет Виктория Нуланд после января? Нуланд является одной из протеже Хиллари Клинтон в Госдепартаменте, и ею также восхищаются закоренелые республиканцы. Это говорит о том, что конгресс с легкостью утвердит ее на посту госсекретаря, а может быть даже советника по национальной безопасности, что в свою очередь указывает на необходимость более тщательного рассмотрения внешнеполитических взглядов этой женщины.Нуланд происходит из, если можно так выразиться, аристократии военных интервенционистов. Ее муж Роберт Каган (Robert Kagan) — это ведущий неоконсерватор, ставший в 1998 году соучредителем «Проекта нового американского века» (Project for the New American Century), который создавался на базе требований о «смене режима» в Ираке. В настоящее время он работает старшим научным сотрудником Института Брукингса, пишет книги и регулярно высказывает свое мнение на страницах целого ряда ведущих газет. Он уже объявил, что в ноябре будет голосовать за Хиллари Клинтон, отойдя от Великой старой партии. Многие усмотрели в этом шаге хитрый ход ради карьеры жены Кагана, то есть его собственной.Брат Роберта Фред работает в воинствующем Американском институте предпринимательства (American Enterprise Institute), а его жена Кимберли возглавляет Институт изучения войн (Institute for the Study of War), который в основном финансируют военные подрядчики. Работая на государственных должностях и влияя на общественные дебаты своими докладами в аналитических центрах и статьями в газетах, Каганы выступают за активизацию военных действий. Это семейное предприятие, являющееся отражением военно-промышленного комплекса в целом. Мозговые тресты обосновывают необходимость увеличения военных расходов и оказывают «экспертную» поддержку тем правительственным чиновникам, которые продвигают и реализуют эту политику. Военные подрядчики, между тем, получают немалую выгоду от государственного пирога и откатывают часть денег мозговым трестам, которые затем разрабатывают новые обоснования для увеличения расходов на военные закупки.Каганы твердо убеждены, что у Соединенных Штатов есть полномочия и обязанность сменять правительства, которые либо не желают сотрудничать с Вашингтоном («лидером свободного мира»), либо настроены враждебно по отношению к американским интересам. Конечно, американские интересы изменчивы и включают такие ценности как демократия и власть закона, а также некоторые практические соображения типа экономической и политической конкуренции. А поскольку интересы — это понятие растяжимое, свою мягкую помощь Вашингтон может оказывать очень многим странам.За что купил, за то и продаю, но говорят, что президент Обама является почитателем книг Роберта Кагана, в которых утверждается, что США должны поддерживать свою военную мощь на должном уровне, дабы она соответствовала их «глобальным обязанностям». Часто говорят о том, что в администрации Обамы укоренились неоконсервативные взгляды на внешнюю политику, хотя демократы и республиканцы выступают за военный интервенционизм по разным причинам. Великая старая партия видит в этом настоятельную потребность мирового лидерства, которое обусловлено американской «исключительностью». А демократы в духе романтизма говорят о «либеральной интервенции» как о порой необходимом зле по гуманитарным соображениям. Но результат — один и тот же, и ни одна администрация не хочет, чтобы ее считали слабой в отношениях с внешним миром. Катастрофические провалы Джорджа Буша в Афганистане и Ираке продолжают давать о себе знать и при демократической администрации, но Обама и сам внес свою лепту в череду военных интервенций в Ливии, Сирии, Йемене, на Филиппинах и в Сомали.Многие могут вспомнить о том, что сама Нуланд была главной движущей силой в попытках дестабилизировать правительство украинского президента Виктора Януковича в 2013-2014 годах. Янукович хоть и был общепризнанным коррумпированным автократом, но к власти пришел в результате свободных выборов. Несмотря на то, что между Вашингтоном и Киевом существовали как будто бы дружественные отношения, Нуланд оказывала открытую поддержку демонстрантам с Майдана, которые выступали против правительства Януковича, раздавая печенье протестующим и фотографируясь на площади с сияющим сенатором Джоном Маккейном.Свой быстрый карьерный рост Нуланд начала в качестве советника вице-президента Дика Чейни. Впоследствии ее неоднократно повышали госсекретари Хиллари Клинтон и Джон Керри, и в сентябре 2013 года она заняла свой нынешний пост. Но медийной фигурой она стала благодаря своему поведению на Украине. Трудно себе представить, чтобы американская администрация смирилась бы с аналогичной попыткой иностранной державы вмешаться в ее внутренние дела, особенно если такое вмешательство обеспечивается бюджетом в пять миллиардов долларов. Но Вашингтон в оценке собственного поведения уже давно придерживается двойных стандартов.Наибольшую известность Нуланд получила за свой грязный язык в разговоре о роли Европы в урегулировании тех беспорядков, которые она помогала разжигать вместе с Национальным фондом демократии (National Endowment for Democracy). Она даже обсуждала с американским послом Джеффри Пайеттом (Geoffrey Pyatt) вопрос о том, кому быть новым руководителем Украины. «Яц — то что надо», — заявила она (имея в виду Арсения Яценюка). А потом начала размышлять, «как все это склеить». А Пайетт в это время рассуждал, как этому поспособствовать. Их открытый телефонный разговор был перехвачен и просочился в СМИ, возможно, не без помощи российской разведки. Хотя это мог сделать любой, вооружившись сканирующим устройством.В 2014 году ситуация на Украине продолжала ухудшаться, но Нуланд приложила немало усилий для того, чтобы сорвать попытки Европы договориться о прекращении огня. Когда командующий силами НАТО генерал Филип Бридлав (Philip Breedlove) ратовал за поставки дополнительного оружия украинскому правительству, чтобы «увеличить боевые издержки Путина», Нуланд выступила с комментарием: «Я настоятельно рекомендую вам использовать словосочетание «оборонительные системы», которые мы должны поставлять для борьбы с «наступательными системами» Путина.А теперь вернемся к первоначальному вопросу о том, где Виктория Нуланд. Длинный ответ заключается в том, что о ней не говорят в новостях, однако она продолжает поддерживать политику, пользующуюся явным одобрением Белого дома. В конце прошлого месяца она снова была в Киеве. Нуланд раскритиковала Россию за отсутствие там свободы прессы, а также российских «марионеток» в Донбассе. В то же время, она рассказала украинской аудитории о том, как «Соединенные Штаты полны решимости стоять плечом к плечу с Украиной, поскольку та идет по пути светлого и демократического европейского будущего…. Мы преисполнены решимости сохранять санкции в связи с ситуацией в Крыму до тех пор, пока Крым не вернется в состав Украины». А до этого она была на Кипре и во Франции, где обсуждала «ряд региональных и глобальных вопросов с высокопоставленным руководством этих стран».Но есть подозрения, что в данный момент Нуланд просто дожидается того, что произойдет в ноябре. И думает о том, куда она попадет в январе.Филип Джиральди — бывший сотрудник ЦРУ, исполнительный директор некоммерческой организации Совет национальных интересов (Council for the National Interest).http://inosmi.ru/politic/20160520/236595389.htmlТом Грэм о том, чего ждать России от Трампа и КлинтонАлександр Братерский 29.07.2016, 10:50— Проблема Крыма останется надолго. Есть ли возможность найти какое-то приемлемое решение?— Сейчас идут поиски решения проблемы Донбасса. Что касается Крыма, то проблема остается, и если вспомнить, то первые санкции были введены в связи с Крымом.Если будет понимание, что российско-американские отношения — это больше, чем проблема Крыма, то найдут решение проблемы Крыма. Я думаю, что есть много путей это сделать, и здесь российская сторона также должна продемонстрировать свою креативность.Я думаю, что вряд ли кто-то в России, даже демократический лидер, согласится отдать Крым.Но даже если это выглядит легитимно внутри России, это не значит, что это выглядит легитимно вне России. И если бы я сидел в Кремле, я бы думал, как это легиматизировать в глазах всего мира. Возможно, это компенсация за потерю собственности украинской стороной. Возможно, проявить креативный подход к ресурсам в акватории Крыма с возможностью совместной добычи энергоресурсов. Возможно, проведение еще одного референдума, который может подтвердить первоначальный.https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2016/07/28_a_9716327.shtml“BOISTO AGENDA” – “Группа Бойсто”Финляндия. Остров Бойсто.по сообщениям диванных экспертов озвученные В.В. Путиным во время монгольского турне предложения по поводу урегулирования украинского кризиса, равно как и другие шаги, направленные на умиротворение Юго-Востока Украины, включая консультации в Минске предложены международной группой экспертов “BOISTO AGENDA” – “Группа Бойсто”суть предложений Группы Бойсто состоит в окончательном отказе от Новороссийского проекта и любых возможных претензий на включение территории “У” в состав большой России в интересах правящей верхушки и международных игроковИ Грэм(бывший Грэхем), и Примаков вскоре достигли доступных для них карьерных высот. Грэм стал специальным помощником Президента США по России и старшим консультантом(опять же по России) при Совете национальной безопасности. А Примаков – руководителем Службы внешней разведки, а затем – Премьер-министром РФ.И вот спустя много лет они вновь скрестили интеллектуальные шпаги. Том Грэм возглавил тайную группу «Бойсто»(Boisto Group) американских шпионов, то бишь профессоров, встретившихся на днях на финском острове Бойсто (архипелаг Руотсинпюхтяя к востоку от Хельсинки) с российскими коллегами. Причем это была уже вторая встреча.http://zlobnig-v-2.livejournal.com/513295.htmlВиктория Нуланд и Владислав Сурков обсуждали режим тишины в Донбассе и доступ ОБСЕ на восток Украины, сообщили в американском посольстве. В Москве предметом переговоров назвали предоставление Донбассу особого статусаПомощник госсекретаря США Виктория Нуланд и помощник российского президента Владислав Сурков, которые встретились накануне, обсуждали прекращение огня в Донбассе, доступ наблюдателей ОБСЕ в зону конфликта и другие аспекты минских соглашений, цитирует заявление посольства США в Москве «РИА Новости».Подробнее на РБК:http://www.rbc.ru/politics/24/06/2016/576cfcb29a79471e6c182c9eОлег ПОНОМАРЬ: Нас ожидает слив Новороссии по плану Нуланд-Суркова, а не войнаОк, давайте еще раз проверим - будет война до Нового Года или будет слив Новороссии по плану Нуланд-Суркова.Здесь опять повылазили "эксперты", которые говорят, что Путин готовится к войне. Это тот легион экспертов, которые в один голос говорили, что Путин будет пробивать сухопутный коридор. Этот легион экспертов потом давал 1000% прогноз, что крупномасштабное наступление будет на Пасху 2015 г. И так каждые 2-3 мес уже на протяжении 2.5 лет у них Путин готовится к войне. Один я тогда говорил, что не будет никаких коридоров и наступлений.По-моему, время и история уже рассудили и доказали - чьи прогнозы сбываются, кто прав и компетентен.Ок, давайте еще раз проверим - будет война до Нового Года или будет слив Новороссии по плану Нуланд-Суркова.пс. вот про этих мастурбирующих на злого Путина и был мой вчерашний пост.http://glavpost.com/post/28jul2016/blogs/93864-oleg-ponomar-nas-ozhidaet-sliv-novorossii-po-planu-nuland-surkova-a-ne-voyna.htmlпредлагаю просмотреть интересный разговор здесь как раз на данную темутам в конце беседы упоминается урановая сделка если речь о том как черномырдин с ельцином продали сша весь уран советского союза за власть и возможность оставить своего ублюдочного преемника так вот визировал эту сделку с американской стороны билл клинтондумаю нужно ждать сюрпризов ближе к новому году_______________________________________________PODESTA GROUP: FROM RUSSIA WITH MONEYhttp://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/..Сурков сопровождал Медведева в СколковоПресс - секретарь президента России Дмитрий Песков одобрил возможную поддержку фонда «Сколково» со стороны кандидата в президенты США Хиллари Клинтон, которую ранее заподозрили в привлечении инвесторов в фонд на посту госсекретаря. Об этом он заявил журналистам, сообщает ТАСС.«Если это было — это хорошо. Это всемирно известная школа. Поэтому, «Сколково» имеет огромное количество международных контактов. Если по линии «Сколково» есть контакты с США, то это только приветствуется», — ответил пресс-секретарь президента. При этом Песков добавил, что не располагает данными о случаях поддержки «Сколково».http://tass.ru/politika/3503945Накануне в колонке в The Wall Street Journal президент американского института подотчетности правительства (Government Accountability Institute, GAI) Питер Швайцер написал, что Госдепартамент при руководстве Клинтон поддерживал создание российской «Кремниевой долины». Одновременно с этой публикацией был обнародован доклад GAI под названием «Из России с деньгами», в котором сказано, что Клинтон и Госдепартамент США принимали непосредственное участие в привлечении инвесторов в «Сколково».Хиллари Клинтон рекламирует ее пребывания на посту государственного секретаря в качестве времени твердолобая реализма и "коммерческой дипломатии", что передовые американские национальные и коммерческие интересы. Но ее обращение с крупной инициативы по передаче технологий на основе усилий Вашингтона по «перезагрузке» отношений с Россией вызывает серьезные вопросы о ее записи. Далеко от повышения американских национальных интересов, усилия г-жи Клинтон в этой области может существенно подорвана U.S. национальной безопасности.Рассмотрим Сколково "инновационного города" 30000 человек на окраине Москвы, счет как российской версии Силиконовой долины - и основной кусок quarterbacking госпожи Клинтон российского сброса.После его поездки в 2009 году в Москву, президент Обама объявил о создании в США-российской Двусторонней президентской комиссии. Г-жа Клинтон на посту госсекретаря направил американскую сторону, и министр иностранных дел Сергей Лавров представлял русских. Заявленная цель в то время: "определения областей сотрудничества и проведения совместных проектов и мероприятий, которые способствуют укреплению стратегической стабильности, международной безопасности, экономического благосостояния, а также развитие связей между российским и американским народами."Кремль совершил $ 5 млрд в течение трех лет, чтобы финансировать Сколково. Государственный департамент г-жи Клинтон работал агрессивно, чтобы привлечь инвестиционных партнеров США и помог России государственный инвестиционный фонд, Роснано, определить американские технологические компании, достойные российских инвестиций. Роснано, которой научный советник президента Владимира Путина под названием "ребенок Путина" была создана в 2007 году и полностью полагается на российском государственном финансировании.http://inosmi.ru/politic/20160802/237401977.htmlСурков сотрудник ЦРУРуководитель Центра прикладных исследований Института США и Канады РАН Павел Шариков в беседе с «НГ» отметил: «К сожалению, есть все основания предполагать, что Россия будет использоваться в грязной политической борьбе и Клинтон, и Трампом, чтобы очернить друг друга. При нынешнем состоянии двусторонних отношений и на фоне совершенно чудовищной пропаганды, рисующей Россию эдаким «бугименом», эта карта уже была разыграна Клинтон. Когда произошел скандал с перепиской, она одним выстрелом убила двух зайцев, обвинив Россию в причастности к атаке, а Трампа – в дружбе с Москвой. Притом что незаинтересованные лица, тот же Джулиан Ассандж, заявили, что свидетельств русского следа в скандале нет».http://www.ng.ru/world/2016-08-04/7_trump.htmlРоссийская тематика не главная в выступлениях кандидатов на президентских выборах в США, однако в Москве ждут, что новый президент задаст новый импульс российско-американским отношениям. О том, как могут развиваться отношения в случае победы Дональда Трампа или Хиллари Клинтон, «Газете.Ru» рассказал Том Грэм, управляющий директор группы Kissinger Associates Inc, в прошлом высокопоставленный сотрудник администрации президента Джорджа Буша-младшего.https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2016/07/28_a_9716327.shtmlпсВалентина Семенюк-Самсоненко. Приватизация по-украински: как это было. 24.10.2013. [Рассвет ТВ]Глава фонда госимущества Украины (2005-2008) о механизмах присваивания народной собственности, о назначении министров факсами из США, о приватизации Криворожстали и Л. Миттале, о долгах депутатов и олигархов перед государством, о произволе Тимошенко.Под Киевом найдена мертвой Валентина Семенюк-СамсоненкоСегодня вечером найдена мертвой экс-глава Фонда госимущества, трижды депутат Верховной Рады Валентина Семенюк-Самсоненко. Трагедия произошла в селе Чайки по адресу ул. Стельмаха 14.Сейчас в двухэтажном доме, где и жила покойная Валентина Семенюк, работает следственная группа, правоохранители пока внутрь никого не пускают.По предварительной информации, выстрел был произведен в подбородок из охотничьего ружья бывшего супруга. Рассматриваются версии самоубийства и убийства.у нас абсолютно то же самоевы думаете они не договорятся с порошенко?
Edmund Kozak, LifeZetteThe neoconservative old guard appears to be hitching itself to Hillary in the wake of a number of Donald Trump gaffes, and is justifying its betrayal of the Republican Party by making accusations about Trump’s mental health. “There is something very wrong with Donald Trump,” writes neoconservative ghoul and chief proponent of American nation-building abroad, Robert Kagan. The only thing that’s “very wrong” with Donald Trump is his refusal to be cowed and browbeaten by political correctness. “Republican leaders have begun to realize that they may have...
Daniel R. DePetris Politics, Security, United States Republican hawks are looking for a way into the mogul's inner circle. July 21 was the most important day of Donald Trump's brief career as a politician. Thirteen months after he first announced his intention to run for President of the United States against snickers from the Republican establishment and eye-rolls from Democrats who thought the entire ordeal was an elaborate bid for self-promotion, Trump stood on the stage in front of thousands of GOP delegates and formally accepted the party's nomination for president. “Who would have believed that when we started this journey on June 16, last year, we...would have received almost fourteen million votes, the most in the history of the Republican Party,” Trump began his remarks. “And that the Republican Party would get 60 percent more votes than it received eight years ago. Who would have believed it?” Who indeed? Certainly not the neoconservative and hawkish wing of the Republican Party. In their defense, there was very little reason why Republicans like Speaker Paul Ryan, Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Tom Cotton, and neocon writers like Bill Kristol, Steve Hayes, and Robert Kagan would be able to predict that someone as inexperienced as Donald Trump would win any states, let alone the nomination of a major political party. And even if Trump miraculously won a couple of states and a couple hundred delegates, McCain, Graham, the Bush family and Elliott Abrams could sleep soundly at night with some degree of confidence that other candidates in the race more to their liking—people like Florida senator Marco Rubio, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, or even Texas senator Ted Cruz—could stop the Trump train before it crashed through the Republican palace. We all know how that plan went. Read full article
The fear tactics used by the “fall in line” folks regarding Donald Trump ignore months of false accusations and insults hurled at Bernie supporters by the Democratic establishment. While Bernie Sanders has honorably played by the rules of the Democratic Party, not all of his supporters are willing to endorse a Democratic hawk. From being labeled Bernie Bros to violent extremists, the logic behind “falling in line” rewards such vile tactics, while ignoring the WikiLeaks DNC emails showing a rigged primary. However, there’s a home for Bernie or Bust voters, even after Senator Sanders endorsed Clinton. Jill Stein expresses the value system of all Bernie or Bust voters during an interview with The Intercept’s Alice Speri: I have heard from you and from many of your supporters that we shouldn’t vote for the lesser evil, that we should vote for the greater good. Is the prospect of a Trump presidency equal in your view to that of a Clinton one? I think they both lead to the same place. The lesser evil, the Democrats, certainly have a better public relations campaign, they have better spin. The dangers are less evident, but they’re catastrophic as well. Just look at the policies under Obama on climate change. Come November, is there a worst-case scenario? No, the two-party system is the worst-case scenario. In my view, the worst horror of all is a political system that tells us we have to choose between two lethal options, and that’s what we have to fight and we shouldn’t be manipulated into thinking it’s one or the other of these villains out there, one or the other evil. There’s a readily available solution right now: ranked-choice voting, which would take the fear out of voting and would ensure that people can vote for their values as their first choice, and their pragmatic choice, whatever that is, as their number two. That would actually enable us to move forward in a good way and bring our values back to democracy. You cannot have a democracy in a moral vacuum. When there’s a moral vacuum, it allows the predatory political actors to swoop in and take control. One of the main criticisms of your campaign is that the “moral choice” is a privilege that those who have the most to lose out of a Trump presidency can’t afford. Poor people, people of color, immigrants, people who need a higher minimum wage, health care access, immigration reform. I think that’s really subject to debate. Because who is it that ushered in the agenda of globalization, of rigged trade agreements, of Wall Street deregulation? This was the Clintons. This is the core of Clintonism. That’s what’s creating the right-wing extremism. In fact, the lesser evil inevitably leads to the greater evil in the same way that Barack Obama lost both houses of Congress. He had two years with two Democratic houses of Congress — they could have passed any law that they wanted. They could have provided health care as a human right, they could have pulled back on these wars for oil and the war against terror, and the assault on immigrants, and assault on the press and our freedom of speech and privacy. They could have done any of that. And what did they do? They bailed out Wall Street and installed Larry Summers, the architect of Wall Street deregulation. They’re not on our side. You think Congress wouldn’t stop you? No, because we won’t put our ground troops on the shelf. That’s what Barack Obama did. When he got into office, he took his ground troops out of commission. That’s what enabled him to win the primary, because he had such an active grassroots movement. He dismantled that grassroots movement at the same time he was appointing Larry Summers, and it became perfectly clear what his agenda was. Here in Philadelphia I have seen large support in the streets for your campaign, particularly from former Sanders supporters. Are you starting to receive support from any elected officials? Yes. We’re at the point where it’s still the very principled people. There’s not a bandwagon effect yet, but there is an opening. And certainly with Bernie supporters the floodgates have opened, and they are here lock, stock, and barrel, and it’s been really wonderful. During her interview with Alice Speri, Stein articulated what so many Clinton supporters can’t comprehend: “With Bernie supporters the floodgates have opened, and they are here lock, stock, and barrel, and it’s been really wonderful.” As Stein explains, “the two-party system is the worst-case scenario.” With Clinton, we’ll likely get the Trans-Pacific Partnership and she’s already stated she wants to intensify the fight against ISIS, including more U.S. ground troops. Then of course, there won’t be any discussion of breaking up Too Big to Fail banks with either Trump or Clinton, which ties into Stein’s viewpoint of the two-party system. As the for the American president and foreign policy, it’s Congress that votes on gun control legislation, while the president can wage virtually unilateral war with the AUMF. While Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders have stated they oppose never-ending counterinsurgency wars and quagmires, Hillary Clinton is now openly backed by Bush’s neoconservatives. Clinton’s neocon backers are highlighted in an Intercept piece by Rania Khalek titled Robert Kagan and Other Neocons Are Backing Hillary Clinton: AS HILLARY CLINTON puts together what she hopes will be a winning coalition in November, many progressives remain wary — but she has the war hawks firmly behind her. “I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group gathered around him, groupie-style, at a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser I attended last week. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.” As the co-founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, Kagan played a leading role in pushing for America’s unilateral invasion of Iraq and insisted for years afterward that it had turned out great. Despite the catastrophic effects of that war, Kagan insisted at last week’s fundraiser that U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years has been “an extraordinary success.” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s know-nothing isolationism has led many neocons to flee the Republican ticket. And some, like Kagan, are actively helping Clinton, whose hawkishness in many ways resembles their own. While Bernie or Bust voters view Iraq to be one of the fundamental causes of today’s chaos in the Middle East, many neoconservatives believe it “turned out great.” Furthermore, they hate Donald Trump, and while his obnoxious Tweets get all the headlines, it’s Clinton’s neocon advisers that get lost in the media spin. As Ms. Khalek writes, Hillary Clinton “has the war hawks firmly behind her.” If you’re voting for Hillary Clinton, would you still vote for her if Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney advised her on foreign policy? Well, Henry Kissinger and George Bush’s neoconservatives are openly supporting Clinton’s future foreign policy objectives. Again, the fear mongering pertaining to “falling in line” and defeating Trump ignores the fact that Trump is actually less hawkish than Clinton. On CNN, Professor Stephen F. Cohen of Princeton recently stated “That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign...And they really need to stop.” In fact, the Russia expert believes that Clinton’s rhetoric ignoring a potentially new Cold War with Russia is far more dangerous than whether or not Russia hacked Clinton’s campaign or the DNC. Ultimately, Dr. Jill Stein provides an antidote to our two-party illness, where Julian Assange believes voting for Clinton or Trump is like choosing between “cholera or gonorrhea.” Dr. Stein’s plans and policies are located here and all of them correlate to the values of Bernie or Bust voters. As for the DNC WikiLeaks emails showing the Democratic Primary was rigged in favor of Clinton, I explain in this YouTube segment why Bernie or Bust voters are never voting for lesser evils. The Trumps and Clintons are friends. It’s difficult to spread fear about Trump, when Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg both go golfing with Trump. For many Bernie supporters, the charade ends in 2016. We’re voting for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, and if you wanted our votes, you should never have cheated Bernie Sanders. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
The FBI is investigating a cyberattack on the Democratic Party's House campaign arm, Reuters reported Thursday night, adding to the troubles already unleashed by last week's disclosure of embarrassing internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.The hack at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee may be related to the DNC hack, Reuters said, citing "four sources familiar with the matter." It said the DCCC breach may have been intended to gather information about donors.The news broke out hours before Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is set to give her acceptance speech, and will certainly increase scrutiny of the party's lax cybersecurity, as well as the Clinton campaign's charges that Russian hackers are trying to interfere in the presidential election to aid Donald Trump. Cybersecurity experts inside and outside the government have said the breach of the DNC's computers appears tied to Russian intelligence services, but the administration has not officially blamed a culprit or specified a motive for the attack.Reuters said the DCCC attack could have begun as recently as June, the same month the DNC hack became publicly known.Reuters said: "That was when a spoof website was registered with a name closely resembling that of a main donation site connected to the DCCC," apparently referring to ActBlue. "For some time, Internet traffic associated with donations that was supposed to go to a company that processes campaign donations instead went to the spoof site, two sources said."The fake site's internet protocol address "resembled one used by a Russian government-linked hacking group," Reuters added.
Within his speech pushing for unity with Clinton, Bernie Sanders stated “I look forward to your votes during the roll call on Tuesday night.” Therefore, there’s perhaps a chance that he could still become Democratic nominee, although the WikiLeaks DNC emails have shown that the primary was rigged in favor of Clinton. Thus, Bernie Sanders supporters, and people who feel that they’ve experienced a roller coaster of emotions have another option; a candidate who wasn’t at risk of criminal indictments. Her name is Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, and she’s not only a remarkable woman, Stein offers hope to millions of people who feel cheated by the system. I explain in this YouTube segment why Bernie Sanders might truly want you to vote for Dr. Stein in 2016. Jill Stein is becoming the new Bernie Sanders (if indeed Bernie doesn’t become Democratic nominee) according to an ABC News piece titled Green Party’s Jill Stein Offers Hope for Bernie Sanders Supporters: “This is how you build political movements —- you have to gain trust and you have to work together and that’s what you can do in the course of a political campaign. You can test the waters and those waters right now are feeling very warm and welcoming,” she told ABC. This is Stein’s second time through the presidential campaign process. She feels that this time, Sanders has helped her campaign… “It’s quite different [this time]. In 2012, we were really ahead of the curve. This year, the curve caught up to us and we have Bernie Sanders who lifted up our agenda and it found incredible resonance in the polls among people who are activists,” she said. The concern that a third party candidate would be more harmful for the major party candidate hasn’t stopped Stein and her supporters from being vocal in their joint criticism of Clinton. When asked what she would think of a Trump presidency, Stein said she “wouldn’t wish that on anyone, nor would I wish Hillary on anyone. Hillary is a proven danger and Trump is a terrifying danger.” There’s no love lost between Stein and Clinton. Stein is quick to point out that, while Clinton will be making history by being officially nominated as the first female presidential candidate for one of the main parties, Stein is the woman who has earned the most presidential votes in the history of U.S. politics to date. “You can be sure that Hillary Clinton does not look favorably on another woman candidate who is actually progressive in the race,” Stein said. “We are a very inconvenient truth.” For some Sanders supporters, that truth looks like it could be their salvation. Jeremy Dolan, 24, traveled to Philadelphia from St. Petersburg, Florida and was spotted today holding a pro-Sanders poster near the protest but said that he’s already open to switching to Stein. “I’ve already donated $1,000 to her campaign,” he told ABC. “If Bernie doesn’t make it past the convention with the nomination, we’ll support Jill Stein,” he said. While most people haven’t spoken about this accomplishment, “Stein is the woman who has earned the most presidential votes in the history of U.S. politics to date.” Whereas Hillary Clinton relied upon the help of the DNC, Dr. Stein hasn’t had such advantages, and simply focuses upon many of the same messages echoed by Bernie Sanders. Although Hillary Clinton is America’s political Ms. Pac-Man, gobbling up Elizabeth Warren, and if the roll call doesn’t work, perhaps even Bernie, there’s one candidate Clinton can’t silence. According to The Hill, Dr. Stein has strong words for the Democratic Party and its version of democracy: Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein once again welcomed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) into her party, suggesting in a series of tweets that he could leave the party that “betrayed” him. “If @BernieSanders repudiates the Democratic Party that betrayed him, I’d welcome him into @GreenPartyUS to continue the revolution,” Stein posted on Twitter on Saturday afternoon. Stein’s comments come in the wake of a massive leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) this weekend that revealed party officials’ plans to undermine Sanders’s presidential campaign. In one such email, the DNC press secretary discussed planting a narrative to the press that Sanders’s “campaign was a mess.” In another, a top DNC official appeared to suggest a plan to question Sanders’s faith and ask if he was actually an atheist. “Don’t let establishment bully you into supporting corporate warmongers,” Stein posted in another tweet… Stein said in an interview with the Guardian. “If he saw that you can’t have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party, he’d be welcomed to the Green party. He could lead the ticket and build a political movement.” Whereas Bernie spoke at the convention about unity, Senator Sanders has stated in the past he believes in the viability of third-party candidates. Just watch Bernie in 1991, stating that in his experience, “the progressive, third-party people” would get the best response from audiences. He also stated in the video that most Americans don’t feel they have a choice, and that it’s truth, not political party, that matter to voters. In this respect, Jill Stein offers the truth about America’s overreaching foreign policy, prison industrial complex, and rigged economy. During a recent NPR interview, Dr. Stein speaks to the heart of Bernie voters, without any compromise: On what the Green Party stands for In a nutshell, the Green Party is the one national party that does not accept corporate money, lobbyist money, or have a superPAC. So we have the unique liberty to stand up for everyday people. We are basically a party that puts people, planet and peace over profit. And we put forward the real solutions that everyday Americans are just clamoring for. On columnist Dan Savage’s (explicit language-laden) criticism that supporting the Green Party is helping Donald Trump I do not say there is no difference between the parties. What I say is that there’s not enough difference to save your job, to save your life, or to save the planet. And the scary things, the horrific things that Donald Trump says, Hillary Clinton has already done. Whether it’s massively deporting immigrants, whether it’s threatening nuclear warfare. ... Put it this way: I will feel horrible if Donald Trump is elected, I will feel horrible if Hillary Clinton is elected, and I feel most horrible about a voting system that says: Here are two deadly choices, now pick your weapon of self-destruction. So, whereas some pundits claim that Clinton is vastly different from Trump, Dr. Stein (and Bernie, Warren, and many others) remember when Clinton voted for Iraq, and accepted millions from Wall Street. In addition, neoconservatives are now openly supporting Clinton, which should be strange for progressives against the Iraq War. If this comes as a shock to you, just read Rania Khalek’s piece in The Intercept titled Robert Kagan and Other Neocons Are Backing Hillary Clinton. Finally, with all the talk of unity, it’s important to note that Jill Stein, or Bernie or Bust voters, can’t be blamed if Trump wins the presidency. Even Nate Silver believes that Trump would win if the election were held today, as quoted in a Hill article titled Nate Silver: Trump would likely win if election were held today: Statistician Nate Silver on Monday said Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would be favored to win if the general election occurred today. If the election were today, Trump would likely win. Trump now leads presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, 57.5 percent to 42.5 percent, in that scenario, according to Silver’s website. Furthermore, in an average of polls according to Real Clear Politics, Trump is up over Clinton by .2 points. There’s one candidate for president that Bernie Sanders supporters can endorse, without feeling they’re rewarding a corrupt system, or succumbing to a lesser evil. Dr. Jill Stein will battle Wall Street, end perpetual wars, and focus on working people. If she falls short of perfection, at least her goals are lofty and she remains independent of lobbyist influence; Hillary Clinton accepted prison lobbyist donations for a reason. With the hubris of Clinton’s campaign working directly with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dr. Stein is needed more than ever, and has in many ways become the new Bernie Sanders. In certain other ways, she could be even better than Bernie Sanders, and I urge everyone to watch Tim Black’s interview with Dr. Stein. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
**Live from the Journamalists' Self-Made Gehenna: Doug!**: _[Only love can break your heart]_: >I’ve been impressed by how many right-wing pundits--George Will and Robert Kagan stand out--are so freaked out and upset about Trump that they’re willing to be anti-Trump all the time and note devote any columns to fragging...
Paul J. Saunders Security, Politics, United States Critics like Jeffrey Goldberg ignore that Trump declined to say that he would not aid alliance members. Donald Trump’s formal nomination as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate appears to have induced mass hysteria among neoconservative Republicans and their liberal-interventionist allies in the Democratic Party. Some, like Robert Kagan and Max Boot, publicly declared their intent to vote for Hillary Clinton were the GOP to select Trump—something it has now done. Others, like Jamie Kirchick, have called for a military coup to oust him if the American people elect him president. Most recently, Jeffrey Goldberg has declared Trump to be a “de facto agent” of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As is often the case, writing like Goldberg’s says more about the author than the target of his or her attacks. Indeed, attentive readers may already know enough about Goldberg; in 2009, Glenn Greenwald detailed his “rank guilt by association technique” after Goldberg wrote that “the Buchananites have even recruited Jews to do their Israel-bashing for them” to condemn a Greenwald article in the American Conservative. Goldberg is attempting the same strategy with Trump, arguing that “Trump’s understanding of America’s role in the world aligns with Russia’s geostrategic interests” and that Trump’s victory would thus somehow advance Putin’s aims. This is both pathetic and offensive. Read full article
Три гарпии вернулись! CounterPunchСША Автор: Пепе Эскобар Рубрика: След Анаконды Это были времена, когда Ливия («мы пришли, мы увидели, он умер») предложила миру кровавый гуманитарный империалистический спектакль, звездами которого выступили Три Американских Гарпии: Хиллари Клинтон, Саманта Пауэр и Сьюзан Райс; на самом-то деле их было четыре — если учесть наставницу и единомышленницу Хиллари, — Мадлен Олбрайт.