The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton 1

What I find interesting is how so many people, and not just liberals and leftists but also many conservatives and libertarians and a few anarchists, regard Trump as some special category of sinner or menace. I’m not a Trump guy. I think he’s a loud mouthed, corrupt, egocentric asshole. But how is he any worse than most of the “normal” politicians? Of the original 17 candidates in the GOP primaries, every one of them with the possible exception of Rand Paul was at least as pro-war at Trump and usually more so. Trump was the only one among them that would seriously criticize the Iraq War, if belatedly. He was the only one to take a conciliatory stance towards Russia. Right now, it’s Trump who is the dove on Russia while the Clintonites are baiting Russia Joe McCarthy-style.


Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate Reply

By Diana Johnstone


shutterstock_329730725 (3)

On June 2, a few days before the California primary, Hillary Clinton gave up trying to compete with Bernie Sanders on domestic policy. Instead, she zeroed in on the soft target of Donald Trump’s most “bizarre rants” in order to present herself as experienced and reasonable. Evidently taking her Democratic Party nomination for granted, she is positioning herself as the perfect candidate for hawkish Republicans.

Choosing to speak in San Diego, home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, on a platform draped with 19 American flags and preceded by half an hour of military marching music, Hillary Clinton was certain of finding a friendly audience for her celebration of American “strength”, “values” and “exceptionalism”. Cheered on by a military audience, Hillary was already assuming the role to which she most ardently aspires: that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Whenever Hillary speaks, one must look for the lies. The biggest lies in this speech were lies of omission. No mention of her support for the invasion of Iraq, no mention of the disaster she wrought in Libya, no mention of her contribution to pursuing endless death and destruction in the Middle East.

But she also lied in claiming partial credit for the Iran nuclear deal, which she had tended to block, and most profoundly in presenting herself as a champion of diplomacy. As Secretary of State, she blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.


The Washington Post reported prior to the speech that her campaign “hopes there are many more national-security-minded Republicans and independents who would vote for her, even grudgingly, rather than see Trump win the White House.”


Mussolini or Nixon? Don’t Bother Voting. Prepare to Resist Reply

A good critique of the presidential race by a left-anarchist. The Trump-Mussolini comparison is standard leftist hyperbole (see today’s other post). Trump is probably more comparable to a figure like Nelson Rockefeller, although comparing Hillary to Nixon is reasonably accurate as is a comparison of Obama and Nixon. If anything, Hillary is arguably to the right of Nixon. As leftist “anti-fascist” Matthew Lyons has said:

“Imagine a president who expands affirmative action, actively promotes school desegregation, enacts important new laws in social welfare, environmental protection, occupational health and safety, and consumer protection, supports comprehensive health insurance and a system of guaranteed income for all citizens, and whose Justice Department opposes the RICO Act on the grounds that it gives the government powers that are much too broad and sweeping for prosecuting criminals. In 2011, such a president would be considered far to left of Barack Obama and far to the left of almost everyone in Congress. Forty years ago, such a president was called Richard Nixon.”

By William Gillis

Center for a Stateless Society

The next President of the United States will be one of the worst.


A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016 Reply

By Walter Bragman


A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump(Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder/Photo montage by Salon)

There are perhaps no three words more jarring to liberals than “President Donald Trump.” The GOP front-runner and presumptive nominee has undoubtedly made enemies with his nativist rhetoric and bellicose persona. That said, now that the race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is effectively over, with the former secretary of state essentially guaranteed the nomination, many liberals and progressives are preparing, once again, to vote for the lesser of two evils. The choice may not be as clear as some Democrats believe — especially if Democrats can take back the Senate and assure themselves of a check on a GOP House.

 Once you’ve let that sink in, try this: There is a liberal case to be made for Donald Trump. The prospect of Trump defeating Clinton this November is not necessarily the apocalypse that some would lead you to believe. Here are some of the reasons why.