09:53 GMT +330 March 2017
Live
    Former President Bill Clinton stands on stage with his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    Why Distrust for Hillary Clinton Growing Among US Voters

    © AP Photo/ Julio Cortez
    Politics
    Get short URL
    514445392

    Hillary Clinton stands a pretty good chance of winning the presidency this November. However, not everything is rosy in the garden of the Democratic hopeful as distrust is growing among American voters, according to recent polls.

    After Bernie Sanders officially endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States, she stands a much better chance of assuming the presidency.

    "How drearily predictable! You get the 'radical' 'left wing' 'socialist' candidate to build up a political movement of idealistic people thirsting for change. He then troops them off behind Hillary Clinton — the epitome of the corrupt establishment candidate — bolstering her numbers and making it more likely she gets elected," London-based political analyst Alexander Mercouris remarked in his comment for The Duran.

    However, Hillary Clinton's potential victory spells trouble for the United States, according to investigative reporter Robert Parry.

    "In Campaign 2016, the American people have shown little stomach for more foreign wars. The Republican candidates who advocated neoconservative warmongering crashed and burned, losing to Donald Trump," Parry writes in his opinion piece for Consortiumnews.com.

    "Only Hillary Clinton is carrying the neocon banner proudly in the general election, advocating a US 'regime change' invasion of Syria — dressed up as 'no-fly zones' and 'safe zones' — while she also cheers on more hostilities toward nuclear-armed Russia," he stresses.

    The investigative reporter draws attention to the fact that although Clinton admits that some of her judgments were "mistakes," such as believing the false narrative on Iraq's alleged WMDs, it seems nothing can prevent her from pushing ahead with her warmongering agenda.

    Parry continues that while the Democratic hopeful "toyed with both the democracy and humanitarian arguments," one of her official emails, released by the State Department, indicated clearly that Hillary Clinton — the US Secretary of State — had no scruples about meddling into foreign affairs of other countries using false pretexts.  

    The email Parry is referring to reveals one of reasons for the Syrian "regime change" war:

    "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad," the email stated.

    "Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted," the email, allegedly written in April 2012, underscored.

    In other words, Parry remarks, all the "humanitarian" talk about "safe zones" and other excuses for Syrian "regime change" was only the cover for a desire to ensure Israel's "nuclear monopoly."

    Furthermore, it is clear that the Clinton team went even so far as to envisage kicking off military actions against Iran.

    Paul Craig Roberts, author and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan administration, lambasted Hillary Clinton for being a "warmonger" in his April article for Sputnik.

    "Hillary is a warmonger. She pushed the Obama regime into the destruction of a stable and largely cooperative government in Libya… She has pushed for 'regime change' in Syria… She brought neoconservative Victoria Nuland, who arranged the coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of Ukraine, into the State Department. Hillary has called President Vladimir Putin of Russia the 'new Hitler.' Hillary as president guarantees war and more war," Roberts warned.

    The investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while exchanging sensitive information has added fuel to the fire.

    Although FBI Director James Comey signaled last week that the former secretary of state would not be subjected to security or administrative sanctions, he noted that Hillary Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    These revelations have obviously undermined trust in the presidential candidate among American voters.

    Apparently therefore, the latest poll conducted by New York Times/CBS News showed that "a quarter of Democratic voters say they are disappointed in [Hillary Clinton] as the nominee; an additional seven percent say they are upset."

    Furthermore, 67 percent of respondents said Clinton was not honest and trustworthy. Interestingly enough, 62 percent of those surveyed expressed their distrust for Republican candidate Trump as well.

    "Mrs. Clinton's shifting and inaccurate explanations of her email practices at the State Department appear to have resonated more deeply with the electorate," The New York Times wrote Thursday.

    Another poll carried out by Reuters/Ipsos in early July underscored the unpopularity of Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, suggesting "a strong potential for a third-party candidate," Reuters reported on July 8.

    "While there will be enormous pressure on responsible Americans not to elect the loose cannon known as Donald Trump, there are serious worries that Hillary Clinton may present her own enormous risks as President," Parry believes.

    Related:

    If She Wins: These Three Clinton Decisions May Ruin US Foreign Policy
    President Killary: Would the World Survive President Hillary?
    Bernie or Burst: Sanders Backers Plan 'Fart-In' For Democratic Convention
    Tags:
    Middle East, US foreign policy, warmongering, 2016 US Presidential Run, U.S. Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Israel, Libya, Syria, United States, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik
    • Сomment
    • rockford75
      I think Clinton going to have a hard time beating Trump. After the great acceptance speech he gave at the RNC in Cleveland. Killary is nothing but a warmonger who should be in jail after her email scandal. The world better hope she doesn't get in otherwise America and the world is doomed.
    • avatar
      kookain reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp,
      Is that true?? "Something like 7 percent of the US population of US population has traveled to another country".
      I always had the impression that with 800 - 1000 US bases abroad at least 50% of US Americans are living far away from home. Living in US bases is perpaps like staying in the US as the staff never learns a foreign language and so is not capable to look at other cultures. I live in direct neighborhood of an US site but I never see Americans even though 20.000 US staff is living in our city.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply tokooka(Show commentHide comment)
      kooka, no, it is only 7 percent of Americans who have passports, as reported in the news in the USA. And like you say, even of those who serve in the US military and of their immediate dependents abroad, many choose not to mingle with the local population. Very few Americans speak more than one language, whereas in other countries many people speak multiple languages.
    • avatar
      kookain reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp,
      I know that Americans or Australians don't see any need to learn foreign languages. In my childhood/youth I had a lot of contact to staff from Ramstein airbase as they liked to have wine tasteries and bying wine every weekend. So I was forced to learn quickly English as they only knew some words like Guten Tat, danke, bitte. The difference to nowadays is - in my opinion - that they liked to travel around and having some contact to local population in former times. Nowadays they stay always in their villages where no Germans have permission to enter.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply tokooka(Show commentHide comment)
      kooka, sind Sie Deutscher? Perhaps the recent behavior of Americans stems from a fear of terrorism - they are less willing to mingle with foreigners. America has roughly 150,000 military troops in 150 countries. Although this is still a very large number, it has been on the decline since the end of the Second World War in 1945. The largest contingents of American troops abroad are in Japan (52,060), Germany (36,691), South Korea (24,899), Italy (11,799), Afghanistan (9,800), the UK (8,920) and Iraq (3,550). Japan and Germany are the result of World War Two which has already been over for 71 years. Voters in most countries are simply too timid to initiate major changes in policy, and true opposition parties are often too immature to govern (diese Parteien sind "Regierungsunfaehig"). The CDU/CSU are very much lackeys of the Americans, but the SPD, the Greens and the FDP are not much different in this respect - all them support the mainline policies of both NATO and the EU. The parties on the fringes (die Linke and Piraten on the left; the AfD and the NPD on the right) need to temper themselves if they ever hope to govern. "Regierungsfaehigkeit" is important - voters need more than just slogans. Day to day governing means collecting taxes, building roads, funding schools, hiring policemen & firemen, paying pensions and so much more. One must also maintain a responsible foreign policy which ensures both peace and prosperity.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, The problem with ANY hypothetical 3rd Party US President is that unless they also control enough votes in Congress they are going to be completely ineffective. Therefore such a Party would also have to gain control of Congress at the same time they get their candidate elected President. This is not a realistic expectation. I take no pleasure in what I have just written. But that is the real world.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply tokooka(Show commentHide comment)
      kooka, Having served in the US Military I can perhaps somewhat clarify what you are seeing. Primarily there is a strong sense of something like racial supremacy, over Non-Americans of whatever race, on the part of the US Military personnel of whatever race. There are individual exceptions to the rule of course but they are few and far between. Those like myself who tried to get to know the regular people away from the military bases were/are very much exceptions to the rule.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, in most cases I would say that you are correct. But in the case of the Libertarian Party in 2016, we have two (2) proven former GOP Governors (Gary Johnson of New Mexico and William Weld of Massachusetts) who were elected TWICE in overwhelmingly Democratic states. The politicians who opposed them most were extreme right wing Republicans. Gary Johnson succeeded from 1995-2003 with massive Democratic majorities in both the NM State Senate and in the NM State House. His successor Bill Richardson, a Democrat (NM Governor from 2003-2011) left under a cloud of corruption. He and his wife came to Santa Fe in 2003 worth something like $2 million and left in 2011 with $16 million. The latter has been replaced with a "neoconservative" GOP administration which makes Richardson look very good by comparison.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, I have had some association with the Libertarian Party in Alabama several years ago. I even considered running as a candidate in a state election. However, I changed my mind when I discovered that I would have to prostitute my beliefs and compromise my principals in order to raise campaign funds. This is no criticism of Libertarianism, but instead is the political reality I discovered. I had the delusion that I could help clean up the corruption within the state government. I realized that I would be totally ineffective and would be running the risk of stopping a bullet for my trouble. I came to see that the whole system is the problem, not who holds office. Mammon alone runs the State Of Alabama, not really the people. This has always been so. I have come to focus on surviving under this corrupt state of affairs, since I can't leave, rather than trying to influence a system over which I can have no control. Until and unless there is a revolution the system here will remain as it is. It is that far gone. Alabama doesn't have the most corrupt and incompetent of the state governments, but we certainly have among the worst.

      I don't mean to shut down the discussion. I just wanted to make it clear where I am coming from. While I do not identify myself as a Libertarian, my position would be equal to such a person who has strong Centrist leanings.

      While I do not agree with all of her positions on everything I am tending towards supporting Jill Stein of the Green Party. (As long as she keeps the lunatic fringe of the party from controlling her.) Because I do agree with most of her platform. If it makes any sense, I am sort of hovering on the frontier between the two parties, Green and Libertarian. I have basically taken my cue from the ACTUAL philosophy of Ralph Nader.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, yes, the entire predicament is very discouraging due to rampant corruption and dysfunctionality. In the case of New Mexico, Bruce King (Democrat) was Governor before Gary Johnson (libertarian Republican who served from 1995-2003). From what I have been told by old-timers, both were very functional and well respected. Nothing is perfect, but they made government work well for the people. Bill Richardson (Democrat) held office in the Governor's Mansion from 2003-2011. He left under a heavy cloud of corruption, which is why his Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish failed in her bid to succeed him in what is a heavily Democratic state. In any case, Richardson was much better than what the state has today under neoconservative Susana Martinez. A colleague who transferred from state government in Ohio told me that John Kasich is much like Martinez - corrupt, anti-union, anti-employee and very successful at destroying the internal structure of the government. I guess the bottom line here is functionality. In the last election I voted for Democrat Gary King (the son of Bruce King) in spite of the fact that I agree with him on no issue whatsoever - I voted for him only in the yearning for better functionality in government. He did not succeed, and retired from his position as State Attorney General. His successor Hector Balderas (another Democrat) will likely win the Governorship in 2018.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, The last Governor that Alabama had that really cared about the people of the state was Lurleen Wallace (The wife of George Wallace) who held office 1967-1968 (She died in office of cancer.). I knew her personally I am proud to say. She was the last governor we had that wasn't completely the tool of corporate interests.

      My family has lived in the northeastern part of what used to be called Alabama country since the mid-1700's when it still belonged to the Cherokee Nation. So I have a multi-generational experience to draw on in regards to this area. The state has always had a problem with money corrupting the political process. Indeed parts of the state have never recovered economically from the governmental corruption of Reconstruction, and that was in the late 1860's threw the early 1870's.
      Alabama shares with Mississippi that dubious distinction.

      I in a way I want to care about politics but there is always the deep-seated cynicism that dominates my thinking based in part as I said on personal experience as well as on what Jung would call racial memory. Bad experiences with government over many generations is what has given we peoples of the Appalachian Mountains such a notorious reputation for being stubbornly independent minded.

      The region would be a prime recruiting ground for the Libertarian philosophy if it weren't for those elements that espouse unrestrained capitalism within the party. Since we have suffered horribly at the hands of unrestrained big business as well as big government. Do you begin to see some of the logic behind my position straddling the philosophies of the Green and Libertarian Parties? Green/Business + Libertarian/Government = Myself.

      Are you aware of Gerald Celente's Occupy Peace movement? You should check it out. Their philosophy is to say the least enlightened.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, you have a fascinating history. I understand that much of southern Appalachia never supported the Confederacy and sympathized with the Union during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Appalachia did not have a plantation economy, and therefore had very few slaves. Most of the Civil War was fought on southern territory, which was devastated by the conquering Union Army. Reconstruction was another cruel disaster - the northern carpetbaggers treated the Southerners like a defeated people, and many of the Republican Presidential Administrations which succeeded that of the assassinated Abraham Lincoln were very corrupt. Lincoln was a good man and did not want the North to take revenge upon the defeated Confederacy. Even General Grant treated General Robert E. Lee with respect by allowing him to keep his sword. The so-called "capitalism" of which you speak is more like "crony capitalism" or even like feudalism. The true free market as formulated by the Englishman Adam Smith and as practiced in the 13 original Colonies is what made early America so overwhelmingly prosperous, democratic and such a magnet for human immigration for most of its history. I recommend that you read a book titled "The Revolution: a Manifesto" by former Congressman Ron Paul. This best selling book is a wonderful tribute to early America, to freedom and to the free market.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, The role of Southern Appalachia in the War between The States is a complex one frequently misunderstood. The misunderstanding coming from not understanding the motives of people due to a lack of knowledge of all of the details. The areas that were predominately Pro-Union were actually East Tennessee and West Virginia. Otherwise it occurred in isolated pockets. There were areas that were always predominantly Pro-Confederate, but overall the region would be more properly described as being Neutral originally, Later it would become largely Pro-Confederate for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery.

      The term Unionist is most of the time misunderstood by outsiders as it relates to the region. There were of course people who actively supported the Union all along. These fail into two broad categories. First were those who were ideologically committed to the Union. The other consisted of the numerous criminal elements of the region who saw the chance to run amok under the flag of the Union because normal law enforcement was in the hands of Confederate officials. These groups did not serve in the same regiments within the Union Army. It would not be an exaggeration to compare the latter to DAESCH, because they behaved very much alike. Do you begin to see why most of the region ended up going Confederate? The term Unionist was originally applied to all of those who opposed secession. To that extent the region could be legitimately referred to as being Unionist overall. The misunderstanding comes in because the predominantly neutral population started out feeling that they had no stake in the conflict and simply wanted to maintain things as they were for themselves. Thus their original opposition to secession.

      The "terrorists" were unleashed on the general population by Lincoln himself. Although they technically formed a part of the Union Army they frequently operated independently of its normal command structure and its normal military discipline. Their job was to cow the general population and not to fight the regular Confederate Army.

      The reason for the actions of the Lincoln Government doing what they did stem from a defining characteristic of my people. That is our independency, our tendency to keep to ourselves and run our own affairs. Since the Republicans lead by Lincoln were in the process of changing the United States from the original confederacy of sovereign states to a highly centralized corporatist state, what happened begins to make perfect sense. The Washington/Lincoln/Republican Government wanted to reduce us to submission to and dependency on the central corporatist state. As far as my people were concerned slavery simply had nothing to do with it one way or another.

      My relatives got involved as what were referred to as Partisan Rangers. They were raised by the State Of Alabama to defend the people of the Northeastern part of the state from the depredations of the "terrorists" I talked about. This after they had suffered at the hands of those people themselves. From such things as rape, murder, arson, and robbery, which were all to common. They started out as State rather than Confederate troops, and only later were incorporated into the regular Confederate Army, which is another story. Partisan Rangers operated something like special forces and part of their job was to hunt down those East Tennessee Unionists who were committing the atrocities in their lairs in the mountains and eliminate them.

      If you have ever seen the old Clint Eastwood movie The Outlaw Jose Wells you will have a good idea of what I am talking about. Even though the setting of the movie is in Missouri rather than Appalachia. The same sort of thing happened in a number of areas around the South. Anywhere the Federal authorities felt like the people were to independent of their control, regardless of their attitudes towards the Confederacy or slavery.

      I think you can begin to see something of the lineage of my political thinking I have already talked about.

      I think it would be useful to describe the whole process by which Alabama came to secede from the Union. It would help to explain much of what we are now seeing coming out of Washington. As well I could also discuss Louisiana as their experience was similar to Alabama's. But that will have to wait for another time.

      Looking forward to continuing our discussion.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, you have a tremendous amount of knowledge and passion for your part of America - thanks for the insight. One could detect the eventual roots of the American Civil War going back to the 13 original colonies - the northern states had few if any slaves, no large plantations comparable to those in the South, and they attracted the lion's share of the white immigrants from Europe. Most of these people settled in big cities, became small farmers in rural areas or became shopkeepers all over. The economic interests of the North and the South were very different, and their representatives in Congress were concerned about maintaining a balance - hence legislation such as the "3/5 Compromise." In spite of what one hears today, the original reason for the American Civil War was not about slavery - it was about state's rights. When South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union in late 1860, the goal of the new Confederacy was not to conquer the North, but to maintain it's independence from the North. Jefferson Davis tried in vain to get diplomatic recognition from both England and France. If the South had been more successful on the battlefield, this recognition would likely have become a reality. As it was, the vastly outnumbered Confederacy was able to gain ground on the field of battle up until Gettysburg - perhaps they were too ambitious in trying to advance into Pennsylvania. I wonder if any politicians in the North were willing to accept an independent South? Abraham Lincoln and his new Republican Party wanted to preserve the Union at any cost. The GOP had been recently formed by Midwesterners such as John C. Fremont and Abraham Lincoln out of the ruins of the old Whig Party.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, Due to my current job the time I get to spend online is rather limited as things now stand. But you have encouraged me to go into the whole story of Alabama's secession in some detail like I talked about doing when I have the time, hopefully tomorrow. It will show how slavery actually related to the conflict as far as Alabamians were concerned. At the same time it will show that the real cause of the war for the non-slaveowning majority of the people of this state was an outright non-constitutional power grab on the part of Washington. For essentially economic reasons most Alabamians were willing to accept the abolishment of slavery. But, and this is critical to understand, not at the expense of having all governmental power concentrated in the central government in Washington. Which was what the Federal Government was doing, using the campaign against slavery to concentrate all governmental power within themselves. Alabama seceded to escape the imposition of military government on the state, not to defend the institution of slavery as you will see.

      While the vast majority of Southerners came eventually to understand what was really going on. Even in parts of the North the realization began to sink in by wars end. Including amongst some Union Army veterans.

      As to your question about Northern leaders "supporting" Southern Independence. There are three that quickly come to mind:
      (1) When George McClellan ran against Lincoln's reelection in 1864, the key plank of his platform was working towards a negotiated end to the conflict.
      (2) Senator Vallandigham of Ohio who started out opposing the power grabs of the Federal Government within Ohio ended up being a Southern sympathizer after Lincoln exiled him.
      (3) Governor Seamore the very popular governor of New York who turned against the war because he felt that New Yorkers, over 100,000 of whom were killed in the war, were being used as cannon fodder to achieve the nefarious designs of the central government.

      While Gettysburg was a serious setback of course. What proved decisive was actually the failure to exploit what should have been the decisive battle that won their independence at Chickamauga latter that year. Due to the incompetence of Braxton Bragg their commander in the battle the complete annihilation of one of the two principal Union field armies did not occur. With General Lee pinning the Army Of The Potomac in place in Virginia. The Confederate Army Of Tennessee could have gone anywhere it wanted to without serious opposition if the western union army had been destroyed. As the Duke Of Wellington said of the Battle Of Waterloo, "It was a damn near run thing."
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, thanks so much for the extensive background information. A friend of mine with whom I attended graduate business school in Virginia belongs to one of the most prominent families in Hampton Roads. His ancestors are German, Danish and Lithuanian Jews who came to America after 1860. He often told me that the American Civil War was fought primarily over the issue of state's rights, and not over slavery - now I can see that much more clearly. It is interesting to look at the history of the 2 large American political parties as well. The Federalist Party began under men like George Washington and John Adams. The Anti-Federalists grew into the Democratic-Republicans (predecessor of the modern Democrats) under men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. In spite of their political differences, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were life long friends who corresponded with each other until they died at virtually the same time in Massachusetts and Virginia, respectively. The Federalists were a much smaller and less popular party compared to the Democratic-Republicans. They did not last long, eventually renaming themselves the "National Republicans" under John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams and political opponent of Andrew Jackson), the Whigs (another very unsuccessful party) until they became the modern Republican Party in the 1850s. The Democrats adopted their current name under Andrew Jackson in the 1820s. From what you say, one would have a much less favorable view of Abraham Lincoln. As it was, the Republicans who held office during the period of Reconstruction after the American Civil War (1865) until the time of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 had a reputation of corruption and of being very anti-labor.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, If either Clinton or Trump becomes the next President this country is finished, and quiet likely the rest of life on the planet along with it. With myself as with many others, I am convinced that if Clinton goes into office there is going to be all out WW3. But if Trump goes in there is going to be open season on the environment for the sole sake of maximizing corporate profits. So the choice is between a quick death and a slow death. But either way Death ends up being the winner of the presidential race. Survival absolutely demands an alternative 3rd Party. It is better to try and fail than it is to never try at all. We have come to a fork in the road with both the roads ahead leading to dead ends. One simply being longer than the other. We have to try and build a whole new road out of the morass that the old road has lead us into.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, at this point I regret to say that Hillary Clinton is the definite favorite to win the election in November 2016. She has an average 0.4 percent lead over Donald Trump (a running average of all national opinion polls as reported daily by Real Clear Politics). Worse yet, she is ahead in the lion's share of the so-called "battleground states" which gives her a forecast victory of 322 to 216 electoral votes. Trump needs to spend a lot of time in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado and Arizona. The Democratic platform is calling for the most massive increase in the size and scope of the welfare state in American history - much bigger than Obamacare. Examples include a minimum wage of $15, no more sub minimum wage for tipped workers & disabled workers, no more death penalty, no more private prisons, amnesty for illegals, open door for Muslim immigrants, "free" college with a minimum 10 hours per week of work to "earn" the benefit, lowering of Medicare from age 65 to age 55, lowering of Social Security from age 62 to age 52, a carbon tax on oil-gas-coal, no more foreign tax credit, strengthening of labor unions in Mexico (because so many of our manufacturing jobs have gone there), and the list goes on. It is like one big candy store - you can see why so many people vote Democratic. The Democrats will likely win the Senate, and pick up a little in the House of Representatives as well. A Clinton "victory" will mean more corruption from Bill & Hillary - they will likely be Dollar billionaires in 4 years. And like you say, war against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is a big possibility. If Trump wins, he will find dealing with Congress is very different from running his business empire - he will have a big challenge in getting his legislation through both houses of Congress. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) is running an average 7 percent, and Jill Stein (Green) is running at about 3 percent. With numbers this small, neither of them will be invited to any of the national debates.
    • avatar
      Randall Lee Hilburnin reply toMarc Nonnenkamp(Show commentHide comment)
      Marc Nonnenkamp, I wouldn't worry to much about what Hillary Clinton is promising. Those are after all campaign promises, which serve to garner votes and are not to be taken seriously. If she gets elected it is more than likely none of them will be implemented anyway. She is a very bad actress who from how she talks it becomes obvious that she is not serious about what she is saying. It is rare that any politician follows up on their campaign promises. They make campaign promises in order to get elected, but their real commitments are made behind the scenes to those who finance their careers and/or promise to pay them off.

      Trump on the surface appears to be his own man. But like I said nothing is ever as it appears on the surface in politics. Behind the scenes, which is where all the really important commitments are made, he is in the pockets of many of the same people Clinton is in the pockets of.

      I am not so naïve as to think that any 3rd Party is going to end up making a difference. The American political system is set up so that only the two major political parties, who are both identical in that they represent the same moneyed interests, can have a significant impact on this countries political life. The two major parties are after all no more than rival factions within the same overarching money party. Nothing short of a full-blown revolution will be capable of changing things. The present system is set up to insure that the same people remain in power regardless of which major political party happens to be in office. Only an internal revolution accompanied by a crushing defeat by an outside power will be capable of bringing down the present system.

      It does appear though that if Trump gets elected war with Russia will be much less likely. But with some of his belligerent talk towards China it may not end up making much of a difference, if they and Russia are in an actual military alliance with each other. In other words Trump is to China as Clinton is to Russia. Either way the military/industrial complex will get the rumor of war they want, and the neocons will get the actual war that they want.

      Clinton and Trump are both putting on acts. The winner of the "Presidential Reality Show" will be the one who convinces the most gullible people that they are sincere. I am one of those people (64% of American voters according to the latest poll.) who wouldn't trust either one of them as far as they could throw them. I for one could never bring myself to vote for somebody I simply don't trust, and I don't trust either Clinton or Trump.

      This presidential campaign keeps bringing to mind for me the old Al Stewart song "On The Border" which is about the Basque people on the eve of the Spanish Civil War. Are you familiar with it? Somehow I keep thinking that we Americans in many ways are in a similar situation to those of the Basques at that time.
    • Marc Nonnenkampin reply toRandall Lee Hilburn(Show commentHide comment)
      Randall Lee Hilburn, look at what Obama has promised and delivered. He promised to make the USA a social democracy (i.e., a socialist democracy) much like the EU, which he has done. He has overseen the largest expansion of government and the social welfare state in American history (something he promised with Obamacare - socialized medicine - managed healthcare - rationed healthcare). It is for this reason that I pay very, very close attention to the platforms of the political parties. Do you realize that someone like Bill O'Reilly of Fox News pays 90 percent of his gross income in mandatory taxes, social insurance, medical insurance, pension contributions, disability insurance and FUTA? In the France of Francois Hollande, this figure went up to 100 percent of income when one includes French national income tax plus provincial taxes. In Norway, one shipping magnate had to pay 490 percent of his income in one year - in other words, all of his income plus much of his assets. This is nothing less than criminal on the part of government, and on the part of the voters who elect such governments.
    Show new comments (0)