Ok, we’re here.
This is the first presidential election since 2000 where I haven’t endorsed a candidate.
While the polls suggest Clinton will probably win, it is close enough that Trump certainly could win if the polls are off at all, as they were in Brexit or in numerous other cases.
Johnson is showing at 5 percent in at least some polls, which is the cut-off for federal funding. Sadly, Stein is not, which is ridiculous, since there are plenty of states the Democrats simply can’t lose, but most “left-wingers” are too frightened and conventional to consider voting Green.
Feel free to use this as an open thread for topics related to the election.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
Okay, so this chart has been going around (though I can’t find the original source). The problem is that people have been acting as if this chart is crazy.
Three parts are just fact:
- Elites have rigged the system against you.
- Trade deals do sell out US (and first world) workers.
- The US is in national decline (though violent crime is down).
The idea that “elections are rigged” is also true. It is more true for Republicans vs. Democrats, but it is also true that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders and for Clinton.
I do not believe that the system cannot be fixed democratically, but the point is at least arguable. It is also noticeable that Trump is actually trying to fix it democratically.
The problem with this chart is not that it is bollocks and lies, rather, it is that much of it is true, and that only Trump is willing to say the truth. If everyone is pretending everything is fine, and only the “crazy guy” is telling the truth, a lot of people will go with the “crazy guy.”
As for only Trump being able to fix it, well, he’s the guy running, who can win, who acknowledges these problems, isn’t he?
The only bits with which I don’t agree, other than getting Trump to “fix it,” are the “crack down on Muslims, deport millions.” BUT here’s the zinger: The US has already deported millions and cracked down on Muslims. Mosques and prominent and non-prominent Muslims are under constant surveillance, and millions of Hispanics were, in fact deported by both Bush and Obama. (Obama deported more, including per year.)
As for the wall—it’s just an extension of what has already been done in places. There are already hundreds of miles of wall.
This logic isn’t crazy at all, it’s more true than Clinton’s meta-message, and it doesn’t suggest doing anything that doesn’t make sense (after a fashion) or isn’t already being done, even if I don’t agree with all of it.
People who think this logic is damning need to get their heads out of their asses.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
UK judges have ruled that Parliament must vote to leave the EU.
There has been much anger in the pro-Leave press in the UK.
This is not hard:
- The judges are right. Parliament is supreme and must vote.
- Parliament should not ignore a democratic referendum result.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
![Image by [rom]](http://www.ianwelsh.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/japanese-fan-by-rom.jpg)
My friends, and the people who read me because they love to hate me:
There are a few hundred people in America who have noticeable individual influence over America’s elections and political system.
You aren’t one of them.
Responsibility is proportionate to power. As an individual American, your individual responsibility is miniscule.
It’s not your fault.
Now, as a group, Americans have great responsibility; Americans are responsible for America.
Americans are responsible, but most individuals have so little responsibility that they might as well have none.
I bring this up because I am seeing people in vast amounts of stress, guilt, anger, and fear over the election.
Don’t.
Also, even if you think that a particular result will be bad for you personally, the same rule applies: There is so little you can do about it, worrying about it is worrying about something over which you have no control.
This, my friends and haters, is a great way to be fantastically unhappy all the time.
Now, it’s easier said than done to stop a lifetime of worrying about stuff you can’t control, but the first step is understanding the pointlessness of it.
The food is still good, the world still holds plenty of beauty, and there is still happiness to be found.
But not if you are tying yourself in knots of guilt or worry over events over which you have no control.
Go do something nice for yourself, or someone else (doing something nice for someone else is one of the best things you can do for yourself), and let it all go.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
So, here we are again, the world’s hegemonic power is about to elect the most powerful person in the world.
All possibly good candidates having been eliminated (as usual) or having minuscule third-party support, we wait to see who will have the world’s best military blowing stuff up at their beck and call.
On the one hand, we have a man who’s personal and business practices have been dubious at best, vile at worst. On the other hand we have a woman who firmly agrees with elite consensus, and who sits firmly with the most violent of the hawks, believing it’s always better to do something, rather than not bomb people.
There’s no question Clinton is corrupt, and there’s no question that Trump has played the system in pretty vile ways, by not paying people who did work for him, and so on. I certainly believe him when he says he has bought politicians.
Neither of them is a prize. We know exactly what Clinton will be like, she confirmed in Libya that Iraq was a misjudgment or mistake, by the way she thinks. As for Trump, well, the variance is high. He’s said all sorts of things, who the hell knows what he’ll do?
The polls say Clinton, but the polls have been wrong before, especially when dealing with populist issues (a.k.a. Brexit), so I’m not going to make the mistake I made with Brexit and assume that she’s got it.
We’ll see. Whatever happens, it will be a show. An ugly tragic show, full of dismembered bodies and needless suffering, but that’s what Americans want: Both the primary voters of each party and American voters as a group.
The rest of the world, not yet having the power to stop American rampages, will do what the weak always do, which is suffer whatever the powerful want to do.
This show is coming to an end, for a variety of reasons, but it will be an election or two yet, before the full millenial “God, we’re broke and fucked” wave hits. Until then, grab some popcorn and whiskey, sit back, and hope that you and yours aren’t hit by the shrapnel.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
Saudi Arabia is issuing 5, 10 and 30 year bonds.
The debt will be among the most secure in the world given the country’s strong balance sheet, net foreign assets, and ~$13 trillion worth of proven oil reserves.
…
On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia is set to issue its first wave of sovereign debt to foreign investors. The measure, first announced last November, is being offered in response to a historically severe compression and enduring slump in oil prices that has squeezed the nation’s fiscal budget. Accessing the debt markets can help mitigate short-term fiscal pressure and provide financing during a necessary bridge period to a more diversified economy.
Well, the five and ten years are safe enough.
Saudi Arabia’s problems are both inevitable, and caused by the new generation of leadership’s stupidity. Remember, Saudi Arabia, seeking to destroy the US fracking industry, is the one who broke the back of oil prices in the first place.
That said, the prices had nowhere to go but down anyway. The world is in a wave of austerity and options which avoid the use of oil are coming online. Somewhere in the early 2020s, electrical cars will be as cheap as gasoline cars.
Game over.
As for the bonds, Saudi Arabia isn’t going to “bridge to a more diversified economy.” Not going to happen. They simply import too much, and do not have enough domestic producers capable of replacing imports and creating new work. Nor are those conditions easy for them to create when their currency value is almost entirely based on vast volumes of resources, which means it isn’t providing the necessary feedback (low, low) to make production in the country viable.
Saudi Arabians have a joke: “My grandfather rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes. My grandson will ride a camel.”
Correct, in essence.
On the bright side, once they’re broke, the money flooding out to promote their particular take on Islam will subside to a dribble.
I expect economic collapse and civil war in Saudi Arabia. Within 20 years.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
We need to clear up some fundamental thinking.
US politicians and foreign policy groupniks spew about how Putin is the next Hitler and must be stopped.
The implication here is that Putin will keep doing bad things if he isn’t forced to not do them.
What are the bad things that Putin’s Russia has done?
Put down an uprising in Chechnya, through mass killing, and with the justification of a likely false-flag attack. Note that Chechnya was, and is, part of Russia. This was a domestic operation.
Attacked Georgia over a couple of provinces which were majority ethnic Russian, and (sotto voce) because Georgia was talking about joining NATO.
Annexed Crimea, the majority of whose population wanted to join them. (There was a referendum in the 80s, which got the same results as the most recent referendum.)
Interfered in the Eastern Ukraine, which is majority ethnic Russian.
All of this happening after a coup, run by neo-Nazis and supported by the West, which would likely have (drumroll) lead to the Ukraine joining NATO.
Bombing the hell out of parts of Syria in rebellion against the Syrian government after being invited in by Syria. Russia has been Syria’s ally for decades and has interests there. Russia regrets allowing a no-fly zone over Libya after being assured by Clinton herself that it would not be used for regime change.
Now, what has the US done over the same span of time?
Invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban said they would turn over OBL if evidence was given to them that he was behind 9/11. You may not believe them, but the US did not even attempt to give that evidence. The US is still there, fifteen years later, occupying a foreign country. (Yes, occupying, the Kabul government would fall if the US left, and we all know it.)
Invaded Iraq, which had done nothing to the US and was no threat to it, on the basis of lies (including that it was behind 9/11). Occupied it for years, and essentially destroyed it as a modern secular country (this after having subjected it to a bombing campaign in the 90s, which, among other things, targeted civilian sewer systems, then subjected it to punishing sanctions which restricted basic medicines and probably caused the deaths of half a million children, as well as many more deaths amongst adults).
Supported an attack on Libya which wound up destroying that country and leaving it in anarchy.
Supported the destruction of Syria, which has led to millions fleeing that country. The likely next US President wanted a no fly zone. This is, essentially, an explicit alliance with at least one al-Qaeda affiliate.
Meanwhile, the US runs a nearly worldwide drone assassination program which has killed thousands and regularly hits weddings and funerals. It is widely acknowledged that this program often kills civilians, often targets “the wrong” people based on an algorithmic “Well, he’s probably a terrorist” calculations, and has even been used to kill an American citizen without due process. This program, lacking all respect for sovereignty or due process, is clearly terrorism by any definition which doesn’t say “The US can’t engage in terrorism.”
So. Russia has acted to: (1) prevent nations on its borders, many of whom have been part of Russia for centuries, from joining NATO, which it considers an existential threat; (2) put down a rebellion in its own territory, and; (3) aid a multi-decade ally who is in danger due to a US- and US ally-supported uprising (these allies include Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States).
The US has attacked three countries, only one of whom may have attacked it, all of which are half the world away. Two of them were clearly no threat to the US, and the third threat was questionable (and there were plans on the shelf to just go in, and take out OBL without occupying Afghanistan). The US kills people with impunity throughout the world, with little regard for civilian casualties, in countries it is not even at war with.
Who is the rogue state? Who needs to be stopped before they kill, and kill again?
One can disagree with much of what Russia has done (the unfettered bombing of Aleppo and the atrocities of Chechnya inparticular) and still say that the US is clearly a rogue nation, and the greater threat to world peace.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
This isn’t a crazy speech.
To the people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders, to the wealthy people who give money and the commentators who give reasons why, it all seems like a bad dream. Donors don’t want to find out how and why we got here. They just want to move on. Come November 9th, they hope everyone else will go back to business as usual.
If “She’s not being investigated/charged any more” was in the public interest, then “She’s being investigated again due to new information” is also in the public interest.
Either Comey should never have commented, or he should have commented both times.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
The last post, a guest post by Mandos, about Wikileaks’ releases concerning Clinton, has spawned a lot of controversy in the comments.
All of which we both expected.
So here’s my quick take on Wikileaks:
First, (Removed, as may be inaccurate) (Edit 3:06pm Oct 28th: it appears Wikileaks only linked to the Turkish database of women, and did not release that information itself.)
Second, the information Wikileaks has released on the US election is germane to the election. It is information which it is in the interests of the public to know. I believe that it should have been released. I do not know if it came from Russia, the evidence is circumstantial at best, but I don’t care if it did or not. The information is real, not fake, and that is what matters.
In 2004, the New York Times knew about widespread spying on ordinary people by the Bush administration. They chose not to release that information because they didn’t want to sway the election. That information might have been the difference between Kerry or Bush winning, the election was that close.
That was vast journalistic malpractice. Journalism is about the public’s right to know, and that information was clearly information the public should have known when making its decision who to vote for. It was germane.
That Clinton is a corporate hack who is essentially on the side of bankers (which is one thing the leaks clearly show) is germane to the election. It matters.
Most information held from public view should not be. We keep far too much stuff that the public should know, private. The public needed to know just how sympathetic to bankers Clinton was right after the financial collapse.
That is, actually, journalism.
So, I don’t agree with everything Wikileaks has done, but I support what it has done in relation to the US election. I also believe Assange when he says that if he had information on Trump he would release that as well. I don’t think the source of the information is particularly important, IF the information is real, which it appears to be.
That many people view this through partisan lenses is understandable and expected. Since the leaks have been Clinton leaks, suddenly the Right supports Wikileaks and “the Left” is against them.
I supported Wikileaks when they were goring Bush and Republicans with “Collateral Murder” and I support them now when they are goring Clinton, because I support Wikileaks on the basis of the public’s right to know; if any information can help the public judge whether they support the governments they have elected or those they may elect in the future.
This is not a partisan issue for me. It is an issue of principles. Information is either in the public interest, or it is not. If it is, and I believe, in this instance, it is, then I support its release.
As for the politics, if Trump loses, that will be on political and personal merits which have little to do with Wikileaks. In this I agree with Mandos; in a normal election, the information in the leaks might have sunk Clinton, but it is insufficient in the face of Trump’s problems.
If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
