USA presidential elections 2016

[PS_RalphW]

You are missing the point that unless you are an ex con black man dealing drugs in the inner city your chances of getting shot in the USA are extremely low.

However, I very much doubt that is true of the majority of gun suicides or accidental gun deaths. You are more likely to be shot by your own offspring or your dog than be killed by a terrorist. (9/11 excepted).

[careful_eugene]

You are missing the point that unless you are an ex con black man dealing drugs in the inner city your chances of getting shot in the USA are extremely low.

However, I very much doubt that is true of the majority of gun suicides or accidental gun deaths. You are more likely to be shot by your own offspring or your dog than be killed by a terrorist. (9/11 excepted).

I thought you were joking or had seen it on the Simpsons then found this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... n-america/ you couldn't make it up.

[Lord Beria3]

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/2 ... d-patrols/

Today most Americans (51%) now support banning Muslims entering the United States. This is slightly up from the 45% support when the question was first asked after Donald Trump proposed the ban in December 2015. This is largely a result of a big jump in support for a ban among independents (42% to 62%), as Democratic opposition and Republican support is largely unchanged over the last four months.

A majority of Americans now back Trump's proposed shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

A major terror attack during the presidential election (assuming that Trump wins the nomination) could impact what is currently poor poll ratings comparative to Clinton.

Just as Reagan was 20 points behind Jimmy Carter before the Iran-Contra disaster, I don't think it is politically impossible that another jihadi attack could upturn the dynatics of a presidential race to the advantage of Trump

[vtsnowedin]

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/2 ... d-patrols/

Today most Americans (51%) now support banning Muslims entering the United States. This is slightly up from the 45% support when the question was first asked after Donald Trump proposed the ban in December 2015. This is largely a result of a big jump in support for a ban among independents (42% to 62%), as Democratic opposition and Republican support is largely unchanged over the last four months.

A majority of Americans now back Trump's proposed shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

A major terror attack during the presidential election (assuming that Trump wins the nomination) could impact what is currently poor poll ratings comparative to Clinton.

Just as Reagan was 20 points behind Jimmy Carter before the Iran-Contra disaster, I don't think it is politically impossible that another jihadi attack could upturn the dynatics of a presidential race to the advantage of Trump

After Trump's comments about the use of nuclear weapons this week I doubt if voters will turn to Trump if we are attacked. Add in the gaff about punishing women that seek abortions and I see the end of the Trump campaign in sight.

[Lord Beria3]

http://atimes.com/2016/04/the-risk-of-n ... gh-turkey/

The havoc a nuclear terrorist attack could wreak in an urban area like New York, London, or Berlin is urgent enough that the leaders scheduled a special session on this threat during the two-day summit.

CIA chief fingers Turkey route

However, a key remedy to address this threat was already underscored back in February by CIA Chief John-Brennan — cutting off ISIS supply line through Turkey.

On Feb. 11, during a taped interview on CBS News’s 60 Minutes, Brennan disclosed ISIS has acquired WMD attack capability, used chemical weapons on the battlefield a number of times, and may attempt to sell them to conduct attacks on western and other countries.

As such Brennan warned that “it’s so important to cut off the various transportation routes and smuggling routes that they have used.”

These routes go through Turkey; however, Erdogan is opposed to sealing ISIS’ supply line.

In a Guardian article last November entitled “Turkey could cut off Islamic State’s supply lines. So why doesn’t it?,” David Graeber questioned Ankara’s motives in keeping the supply line open through Turkey. [4]

This week, it was revealed that in a closed-door meeting with US politicians back in January, Jordan’s King Abdullah accused Turkey of exporting terrorists to Europe.[5]

The King informed US congressional members that the AKP sought a “radical Islamic solution” to the Middle East and that exporting terrorists to Europe is “part of Turkish policy,” while stoking the refugee crisis as a form of hybrid warfare to extract concessions from the EU.

He also pointed out how Turkey profits from sale of ISIS oil, an issue Russia has highlighted the past months.

Those who say that terrorism is not a real threat should read this article in full. Tens of thousands would die in the event of a nuclear 9/11.

Turkey is clearly playing a double game - one wonders what they are up to?

[clv101]

Perspective! 'Terrorism' is not a real threat, it's a politically manufactured 'threat' to distract us (our leaders included) from the serious threats. Poor health, environmental damage (inc. climate), resource scarcity... are the real threats which are already killing millions with the potential to kill billions this century.

A few nutters blowing things up, even killing thousands with aircraft (as 9/11 was a one off it's annualised death toll is falling) or a dirty bomb really isn't where we should be focusing.

[vtsnowedin]

Perspective! 'Terrorism' is not a real threat, it's a politically manufactured 'threat' to distract us (our leaders included) from the serious threats. Poor health, environmental damage (inc. climate), resource scarcity... are the real threats which are already killing millions with the potential to kill billions this century.

A few nutters blowing things up, even killing thousands with aircraft (as 9/11 was a one off it's annualised death toll is falling) or a dirty bomb really isn't where we should be focusing.

I could not disagree more. These are radical fanatics that will use as big a weapon they can get to kill as many people as they can as soon as they get their bloody hands on that weapon. If we let down our guard they will eventually get their hands on a working nuclear device and blow one of our major cities away. Which will it be? London, New York, Tel Aviv?

[Little John]

Perspective! 'Terrorism' is not a real threat, it's a politically manufactured 'threat' to distract us (our leaders included) from the serious threats. Poor health, environmental damage (inc. climate), resource scarcity... are the real threats which are already killing millions with the potential to kill billions this century.

A few nutters blowing things up, even killing thousands with aircraft (as 9/11 was a one off it's annualised death toll is falling) or a dirty bomb really isn't where we should be focusing.

You are right on this CLV. However, war is also coming as it always does with such environmental degradations and things like an increase in "terrorism" are a part of that road to war. Soon enough, war and conflict will be the more immediately pressing concerns of most people, and for immediately pressing reasons, you can be sure of it.

[biffvernon]

The Royal College of Physicians said, "Each year in the UK, around 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution".
There was one death attributable to terrorism in May 2013, none in 2014 or 15 in the UK.
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/ou ... -pollution

[kenneal - lagger]

Correct me If I'm wrong but Erdogan isn't a secularist. I thought he was in favour of an Islamic government but doesn't have the power to impose one at the moment. Also if there was an Islamic government in Turkey there is no way that Turkey would get into Europe. Perhaps it is his strategy to get Turkey into Europe in order to flood Europe with Islamic warriors in order to Islamify Europe.

[emordnilap]

Perspective! 'Terrorism' is not a real threat, it's a politically manufactured 'threat' to distract us (our leaders included) from the serious threats. Poor health, environmental damage (inc. climate), resource scarcity... are the real threats which are already killing millions with the potential to kill billions this century.

A few nutters blowing things up, even killing thousands with aircraft (as 9/11 was a one off it's annualised death toll is falling) or a dirty bomb really isn't where we should be focusing.

Agree 100%. Violence begets violence at any level. From the level of the personal through to the planetary. Somewhere at the lower end of that scale comes the predictably violent response to western imperialism.

[kenneal - lagger]

The Royal College of Physicians said, "Each year in the UK, around 40,000 deaths are attributable to exposure to outdoor air pollution".
There was one death attributable to terrorism in May 2013, none in 2014 or 15 in the UK.
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/ou ... -pollution

That is probably because we spend far more on reducing terrorism than we do reducing air pollution. If we had the same level of control of terrorism that we do air pollution who knows how many people would be dying.

[Lord Beria3]

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ ... itics.html

Greers back! A great article why politics as we know it is dead. Its a long article but worth reading in full.

It may not be an accident, either, that starting about a week after that first post went up, two things relevant to it have started to percolate through the mass media. The first, and to my mind the most promising, is that a few journalists have managed to get past the usual crass stereotypes, and talk about the actual reasons why so many voters have decided to back Donald Trump’s aspirations this year. I was startled to see a thoughtful article by Peggy Noonan along those lines in the Wall Street Journal, and even more astonished to see pieces making similar points in other media outlets—here’s an example,, and here’s another.

Mind you, none of the articles that I saw quite managed to grapple with the raw reality of the situation that’s driving so many wage-earning Americans to place their last remaining hopes for the future on Donald Trump. Even Noonan’s piece, though it’s better than most and makes an important point we’ll examine later, falls short. In her analysis, what’s wrong is that a privileged subset of Americans have been protected from the impacts of the last few decades of public policy, while the rest of us haven’t had that luxury. This is true, of course, but it considerably understates things. The class she’s talking about—the more affluent half or so of the salary class, to use the taxonomy I suggested in my post—hasn’t simply been protected from the troubles affecting other Americans. They’ve profited, directly and indirectly, from the policies that have plunged much of the wage class into impoverishment and misery, and their reliable response to any attempt to discuss that awkward detail shows tolerably clearly that a good many of them are well aware of it.

[Lord Beria3]

I have written in the past on how Trump, if he got into power, would not hesitate to unleash the power of the mob to further his political agenda against the iron grip of the 1% on the political system.

Well, this New Yorker article has confirmed that Trump, the ultimate hard man candidate, is prepared to unleash the dark forces of his supporters against any delegates who try to stop him winning the nomination.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... -fix-is-in

Roger Stone, Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again consigliere, has delivered the campaign equivalent of a severed horse head to delegates who might consider denying Trump the nomination. Trump’s supporters will find you in your sleep, he merrily informed them this week. He did not mean it metaphorically.

“We will disclose the hotels and the room numbers of those delegates who are directly involved in the steal,” Stone said Monday, on Freedomain Radio. “If you’re from Pennsylvania, we’ll tell you who the culprits are. We urge you to visit their hotel and find them. You have a right to discuss this, if you voted in the Pennsylvania primary, for example, and your votes are being disallowed,” Stone said.


Over the years, I’ve covered elections in Iraq, Iran, and Burma. Stone’s taunt is every bit as threatening as anything I heard in those places, which have far less experience than America with democracy. Such is the moment we currently inhabit.

By now, we know most of the chapters in Trump’s political playbook: the epithets for “low-energy” Jeb and Lyin’ Ted and Little Marco, and the bombshell provocations—about, say, a nuclear strike in Europe—as a way to draw attention away from unfavorable news and missteps. And, throughout, of course, the mockery of women. But as we approach the growing prospect of a contested convention, in which delegates can make game-time choices about whom they will support, it’s becoming clearer that Trump may seek to shape the outcome by using his most unwieldy weapon of all: the latent power of usually peaceful people.

I don't endorse or support these tactics (I want to make it clear), however, I have always thought that to wrest control from the financial oligarchy and military-industrial complex that rules America would involve a degree of revolutionary violence or certainly the real spectre of it.

Trump's populist-nationalistic revolution from the Right has appalled the Republican donor class and their political allies within the Republican establishment. What they don't appear to understand is that Trump will do anything to get to power.

[emordnilap]

This really ought to settle the matter of the presidency:

Bernie Sanders Calls for Nationwide Ban on Fracking