What Does A Hillary Presidency Look Like?

So, what does a Hillary Presidency look like? Here's my rough opinion.

Domestically, a continuation of the Bill years with Obama's strategically purchased blessing. A lot of pandering to the usual recipients of limo liberal lip service. A few progressive measures, most of which won't clear a Republican Congress (assuming one exists).

Internationally, business as usual for the War On Terror. Perhaps a tiny relaxation in the War On Drugs (we might finally let go of pot). A whole lot of drones and continuing civilian casualties. NAFTA firmly in place. Lip service to EU but also the beginnings of a search for ways to circumvent or neutralize it if be.

Your thoughts are?

* Continuing expansion of NATO up to Russian borders and/or exercises from the Arctic to the Black Sea
* Continuing sending of USN carrier groups to the South China Sea to show em' who's boss
* Continuing Syrian war, perhaps up to and including 'get tough on Russia' no fly zone approach leading to international incidents forcing Russia to respond accordingly and perhaps igniting massive war
* Continuing sponsoring of color revolutions and sowing 'controlled chaos' in unruly countries refusing to accept US dictate from Latin America to Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East, causing more destruction and suffering for innocents
* Continuing pushing for trade deals (TTP, TTIP) meant to strangle China & allies and to firm up US corporations' control over foreign partners, while starving many US regions of jobs and thus (further) undermining socioeconomic stability
* Continuing concentration of wealth to the top 1%
* Subsequent continued move away from bourgeois-democratic to reactionary/fascistic characterization of the US legal, political and socioeconomic system (surveillance state, militarization of police, getting law-abiding citizens to agree to things like chipping and cash-free lifestyle, in a worst case scenario)
* Subsequent increase in resistance among live free or die types already hopped up on conspiracy theories, armed to the teeth and suffering from alcohol or drug addiction in depressed areas, leading to Waco/Oklahoma-type domestic terrorism and 'resistance' movements

My two kopeks, anyway.

I see no reason to think it doesn't just represent business as usual under Obama, with a slightly harsher line on Syria.

Based on the stances she's taken and the advisors she's surrounded herself with I highly doubt she'll reverse Obama on anything. I also highly doubt she'll be better than Obama on anything.

Soviet78 is right about the Trump/Nugent/Bundy/Duke constituency getting louder, drunker, and more unstable. If elected, Hillary will very likely have the largest, most complex system of security any President has ever had. This works hand in glove with her policy of "the less transparency, the better."

Meanwhile, Bill will take Jimmy Carter's place as the "doing charitable stuff on camera" guy, as a non-coincidental byproduct of the millions of dollars that will silently and unaccountably find their way to the Clinton Foundation.

I read somewhere that most Sanders voters would rate vote for Trump than Shillary.
I'd also do the same, just because of how disgusting that lying snake is.

Loz wrote:

I read somewhere that most Sanders voters would rate vote for Trump than Shillary.
I'd also do the same, just because of how disgusting that lying snake is.

A significant minority (about 30%), not a majority. And thank god.

As utterly unlikable and underhanded as Hillary Clinton is, President Trump is a nightmare scenario. If we take him at his word, complete with detention camps for Mexicans and nukes in the Middle East. If we don't, he's an even bigger lying snake than Clinton and has a movement who would love him to do those pretty apocalyptic things, so. Yeah. Better the totally corrupt human devil, not the Bond villain.

It's the old devil we know versus the devil we don't know debate going on here and in the Brexit discussions, with much too many overly confident predictions of would-be scenarios going on. In this case I'm still on the fence, simply don't know what to make of it.

There is one thing I'd like to say to all our American comrades here though, which is that the reason some people outside America are hoping for a Trump victory is that seeing as he's such a controversial and divisive figure within the United States, his coming to the presidency would cause much wanted instability and chaos within America; thus their logic works upon the premise of what's bad for America is good for the rest of the world.

I personally do not share that sentiment. The evidence which has been put forth hasn't convinced me without reasonable doubt that either candidates would be able to change much of what is the current status quo, no matter how hard they try.

For the record, Donald Trump is the most hated figure on the American left since George W. Bush. Maybe more, maybe since Nixon. McCain scared us with his apparent senility and brazen desire to go to war with Iran. Romney scared us with what seemed like a desire to move a corporate-raider "slash and burn" mentality to the government. But ultimately, Romney was a hapless stuttering figure who nobody anywhere was enthusiastic for. And McCain was not only hated for over a decade by the Republican base, but let himself be overshadowed by his moronic VP pick. They ended up just figures of ridicule, because we knew they wouldn't get anywhere. Trump has ridicule as well, you'd see us even more enraged if it looked like he might win, but he also has an enthusiastic and frankly terrifying cult of personality and we worry about what they'll do in the likely event he loses.

I personally disagree with the "what's bad for America is good for the rest of the world" reasoning here. His first and foremost job is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. That control over foreign policy allows him the ability to expand the War on Drugs at his leisure, which is one stated goal and would entail ramped up intervention throughout Latin America. That's why Telesur hates him so much. It also lets him unilaterally tear up the Iran Deal, which is why PressTV loathes him. It also allows him significant control over border policy. If he wanted the detention centers, he has precedent from Japanese internment on his side.

All of the above is bad for both the rest of the world and America, aside from the most hardline elements of the security establishment. Meanwhile, the arguments I've seen in his favor are "he's going to remove US bases in Germany," which just tells me he's going to be more efficient at administering imperialism. Or "he's going to replace US bases in the Pacific with nuclearized American allies," which both risks destabilization and is (from a purely cost-cutting "as cheap as possible" business perspective) an example of more efficiently administering imperialism. We got that under Bush Jr. to an extent as well, the Iraq War used the smallest possible force due to Rumsfeld's background as a bureaucratic bean-counter. It ended up just destabilizing the Middle East.

I should add that basically every country on the planet polls as hoping for a Trump loss. Weakest in Russia, where the media has a love affair with him due to his own weird Putin fetish. Also somewhat weak in Israel, where Netanyahu appears to favor him, probably over the Clintons' involvement in the Oslo peace treaty (which Bibi undermined) and also Israel's right actually wanting less foreign aid because it includes stipulations that they buy from American defense companies (inhibiting their own defense industry). As far as I'm concerned, support from those two is not a vote of confidence.

Quote:

That's why Telesur hates him so much.

Telesur seem to hate her just as much if Abby Martin's Empire Files is anything to go by. Criticizing any one of these two candidates doesn't bother me, it's choosing one over the other by Marxists that worries me.

Yeqon wrote:

Telesur seem to hate her just as much if Abby Martin's Empire Files is anything to go by. Criticizing any one of these two candidates doesn't bother me, it's choosing one over the other by Marxists that worries me.

Telesur does hate her, the Clinton record in Latin America is pretty terrible in both Bill's presidency and when Hillary was Secretary of State.

But it's not Clinton that they're creating memes about and running horror stories over daily. They're sharply critical of her and outright panicked over Trump. Basically the reverse of RT, which is increasingly critical of Trump but runs vehement anti-Clinton articles daily.

We're picking Clinton over Trump not because we like Clinton. We actually sort of despise her, we voted Bernie and the Marxists in his camp even saw him as just an effort to move the overton window left rather than actually thinking his platform is revolutionary. But the key thing is: Clinton is business as usual, where Trump among other things represents a ramp-up in the War on "Drugs" (Latin America and the poor at home) and an outpouring of nativism. We're pretty terrified of him.

"I support neither" is well and good for me, I live in a solid blue state and don't intend to vote for her. It's entirely feasible for me to vote left of the Democrats, considering "Green" or even "PSL" has about as much chance of taking California as the Republicans and I get more out of adding my voice to that leftward pressure than going with the Democrat crowd that makes up the vast majority of the state. If I lived back in Virginia, it would be a cop-out considering they could go either way or Libertarian, and a vote for Green/PSL in that instance is a vote that could have been used to stop Trump.

Nevada is an odd example of a state that could go red or blue, depending on the candidate. For years, it was a solid Republican state (its very history guaranteed this), but FDR's WPA changed this. They liked Ike, but voted in Truman and JFK, then went with Nixon. Since the time of Oscar Goodman, it's been pretty reliably blue. But this is also largely because Las Vegas is very much a Democratic stronghold (for the moment).

Trump does have a considerable presence in Vegas, but his history of being a time-serving ally of the casino industry will hurt him. His history in Atlantic City doesn't win him an allies here. In fact, even though AC was Vegas' most hated rival, Trump's callous abandonment will always have industry figures running leery of him.

Outside of Vegas, rural Nevada is pretty solidly Republican, especially as you advance further north up into Romney country. But the population is so minuscule that it may as well count as the collective will of North Dakota ranchers - locally potent but nationally impotent. Ain't no Green party in Vegas, so I'm stuck dosing up with Pepto and voting for That Woman.

If you're confident Trump won't take Nevada, you could vote Green or PSL as a party-building exercise. The better they do, the more presence and infrastructure they'll have next time.

Though it's a gamble, considering the Vegas mogul Sheldon Adelson is his main financial backer. If he can somehow about-face from his recent "I'm just being sued because this judge is a Mexican"/"Obama's a secret Muslim" implosion, Nevada could conceivably have more Trump ads than Clinton ones? The large Latino population probably makes a Trump win overwhelmingly unlikely there though.

The large Latin population is actually outnumbered by the larger Filipino population, which is something no one seems to ever talk about. Even Trump hasn't managed to insult them...yet.

Even though Filipinos, like Mexicans, are a traditionally conservative and rather Catholic constituency, most of them won't vote for a racist candidate, for obvious reasons. So Trump's base in Vegas is exactly like his base in the rest of the country...ignorant white folks who identify with Trump's "frag you" money and hope for a few crumbs from the Emperor's table.

As for voting PSL or Green, I could give them my vote but I think it's going to take much more than that to build up their infrastructure. Honestly, why these guys don't start a content marketing campaign is beyond me. One viral video could bring in thousands of members at a single stroke. They need money to build infrastructure, and they need new donors to do it. Learn SEO, you fools!!!

soviet78 wrote:

* Continuing expansion of NATO up to Russian borders and/or exercises from the Arctic to the Black Sea
* Continuing sending of USN carrier groups to the South China Sea to show em' who's boss
* Continuing Syrian war, perhaps up to and including 'get tough on Russia' no fly zone approach leading to international incidents forcing Russia to respond accordingly and perhaps igniting massive war
* Continuing sponsoring of color revolutions and sowing 'controlled chaos' in unruly countries refusing to accept US dictate from Latin America to Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East, causing more destruction and suffering for innocents
* Continuing pushing for trade deals (TTP, TTIP) meant to strangle China & allies and to firm up US corporations' control over foreign partners, while starving many US regions of jobs and thus (further) undermining socioeconomic stability
* Continuing concentration of wealth to the top 1%
* Subsequent continued move away from bourgeois-democratic to reactionary/fascistic characterization of the US legal, political and socioeconomic system (surveillance state, militarization of police, getting law-abiding citizens to agree to things like chipping and cash-free lifestyle, in a worst case scenario)
* Subsequent increase in resistance among live free or die types already hopped up on conspiracy theories, armed to the teeth and suffering from alcohol or drug addiction in depressed areas, leading to Waco/Oklahoma-type domestic terrorism and 'resistance' movements

My two kopeks, anyway.

I agree completely. I am actually starting to think that the Democrats might be more dangerous managers of the capitalist state because they appear to be more competent than the Republicans.

So Bernie endorsed Hillary, blah blah. Only logical thing he could do, yawn. Appointing heads to successor organizations to keep "the revolution" going. Oh well, things end.

BLM will do more for the cause than a pair of old white Democrats. They just don't have a figurehead yet, controversy-free or otherwise. Unless Kanye steps up to the plate (gag).

Hillary has also promised to install 1/2 billion solar panels by the end of her first term. The most effective means of combatting carbon emissions is well known but no politician will touch it: the carbon tax. Hillary is not calling for a carbon tax, although Sanders did.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6019 ... arbon-tax/

Looks like Debbie Wasserman Schulz is coming under fire for her collusion against Bernie. Not that it matters. If Hillary can't find a way to save her, she'll end up with an even cushier gig as an MSNBC analyst or unpublicized position at the Clinton Foundation.

It's funny that the media is only too glad to report that contributions to Trump from are coming largely from Trump-owned companies, meaning that money is essentially just moving from place to another. How much of the same is going on via the Clinton Foundation? Not many reports - so far.

Breaking news: Debbie's out! Or is she?

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/0 ... gs-aboard/

The 'Russian trace' part is particularly amusing, and amazing if true actually; essentially, the Democrats are saying 'here, shoot the messenger' instead of focusing on their corrupt, biased, and even bigoted (in the case of that 'he's a Jew!' staffer's comments) organization's misdeeds.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... dnc-emails

It proves one thing: Unless and until they can successfully shut down the Internet, all information posted anywhere online is potentially public property. You'd need Skynet to successfully secure it. Ergo, they are working on Skynet.

Many on the left were sure the Republican party was splintering. I, for one, was all for it. Now, though, I'm starting to think it really won't. Most right-wingers have gladly jumped on the Trump bandwagon or are biding their time to ride out the storm. In other words, the party has knuckled under because all Donald has really done is to say out loud what every one of them were secretly thinking since 1968.

Update: DNC issues formal apology for its actions re: sabotage of Sanders' campaign, then attempts to lay the blame for the leaks on Putin.