On the significance of US presidential election results: The end of ‘business as usual’

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) considers that the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States will represent the rule of the oligopolies through unfettered police powers. His election has plunged both the peoples of the U.S. and the peoples of the world into an even more dangerous situation.

On November 4, on the eve of the U.S. presidential election that took place on November 8, CPC(M-L) wrote the following:

“… the campaign has revealed the extent to which the U.S. state and system of governance operate through corruption and coercion as well as how people are deprived of political power.”

CPC(M-L) noted that how the people are deprived of political power is “the other very important aspect of the state power in the hands of the financial oligarchy. The ruling imperialist elite achieve this by depriving the people of an outlook, a way to look at the world and the problems that have arisen so that they can be calmly sorted out and provided with solutions.”

The same applies to the verdicts on the election results. Everything is being done “to deprive the people of an outlook, a way to look at the world and the problems that have arisen so that they can be calmly sorted out and provided with solutions.”

What are the verdicts being pushed? From the side of the Clinton campaign, the verdict is that the result is the apocalypse, and the values and vision of Clinton remain all that stand between “you and the apocalypse” as she said during the campaign. From the side of the Trump campaign comes the explanation that he led “a movement” which is anti-establishment, wants the problems of the economy dealt with and an end to “all the bullshit.” From both sides comes the agreement that now that the election is over, everyone’s duty is to abide by the Constitution, ensure the transition of power is peaceful and unite America.

Advertisements

Prospect that election of a US war president will unleash war

Under President Obama the U.S. has conducted bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen (in 2015 the number of bombs dropped on these countries is estimated to be 23,144, with the vast majority in Iraq and Syria). Extrajudicial targeted assassinations using drones or other means have become a mainstay of U.S. foreign policy. As Secretary of State in 2011 Hillary Clinton championed the U.S. war against Libya and infamously cheered the assassination of Libya’s leader with the macabre phrase, “We came, we saw, he died.”

Clinton wants to do Libya again — now to Syria

This is the result of NATO bombing of Sirte to “enforce the no-fly zone” in Libya.

Eric Zuesse (I’m sending this commentary on Craig Murray’s recent post to all news-media:)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and President Obama — and some NATO partners) did it previously to Libya, and here was the result (as discussed by the retired British career diplomat Craig Murray, at his craigmurray.org.uk, who has kindly allowed me to distribute it to other newsmedia) [and I as editor will add a few clarifiers and questions in brackets] (and then afterward, I shall add my own comments); so, here is Craig Murray:

Campaign to elect a war president for the United States (2): The danger of a hot civil war

The concern of open conflict within the military and other police agencies and between them and the presidency has been sharply evident in this election | Voice of Revolution*

At the September 7 “Commander-in-Chief” forum broadcast from an aircraft carrier stationed in New York City, Donald Trump went out of his way to say he had secured the support of 88 generals and admirals. Clinton also often comments on the support she has in the military and intelligence agencies. This public display of contention within the military and between the military and presidency is indicative of the difficulties the rulers face in preserving the union and preventing a hot civil war. The old arrangements, where Congress and political parties functioned and served to help resolve conflicts, no longer exist.

Campaign to elect a war president for the United States (1): The struggle for rights and an anti-war government

The U.S. election campaign is showing the deepening conflicts among the rulers and their inability to find a way out of their crises, and that U.S.-style democracy is in tatters at home and abroad. They hide their failures behind the slogan Make America Great Again – which only applies to the very, very few who benefit from its striving for world domination | TML Weekly

The U.S. presidential elections continue to reveal a ruling class with no solutions to key problems, especially those connected to the economy and questions of war and peace. Voters are broadly speaking angry with an electoral set-up that produces two candidates, Clinton and Trump, that the majority do not like or want as president. At an NBC Commander-in-Chief forum, the general issues of illegal U.S. aggression, drone warfare and torture – and ending them so as to contribute to peace – were not even addressed. Instead the focus was on the past, like Clinton’s emails and Trump’s regrets.

US President’s warmongering address to Joint Houses of Parliament

By ENVER VILLAMIZAR

On June 29, U.S. President Barack Obama addressed a joint sitting of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons following the end of the North American Leaders’ Summit that day. Obama’s speech comes in the twilight of his eight-year Presidency, at a time when U.S. society is mired more deeply than ever in a social crisis, with young black men and other sections of the people being killed with impunity by police while the U.S. is engaged in more wars and conflicts than ever. It also comes in the midst of the U.S. election campaign, where the stated aim has become to “unite the nation” behind a war president capable of “Making America Great Again.”

The Trump card: a possibly NATO-domino effect

GHASSAN KADI* contemplates scenarios that may have repercussions on strategic alliances of the United States.

As the world sits and watches the horrors of the American elections, many non-Americans are relieved that they don’t have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; and for obvious reasons.

Clinton comes from the old school of American politics; for bad or for worse. Her “reign”, if she makes it, will be a virtual continuation of the Obama administration. Even if she implements changes, and even if she decides to put boots on the ground, big time, somewhere on the globe, it is highly unlikely that she will surprise anyone in whatever she does and does not do.