The Indian Parliament&#39;s Monsoon Session commences&nbsp;today (July 17),&nbsp;the same day that Members of Parliament cast their vote to elect&nbsp;the President.

Both Houses of Parliament, the&nbsp;Lok Sabha and&nbsp;the Rajya Sabha will be adjourned today because of the death of sitting members.&nbsp;

The 19-day Session is expected to be stormy with the Opposition likely to corner the government over key issues including the stand-off with China in Doklam, the killing of Hindu pilgrims in the terrorist attack in Amarnath, farmer suicides in Madhya Pradesh, the roll-out of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the communal violence in West Bengal.

On Sunday the Speaker held an all-party meet to iron out differences between government and opposition parties.

She said all political parties had assured a peaceful and constructive Session and said they would discuss several issues.

&quot;I want this Parliament session to be fruitful. All political parties have assured me that they will help in conducting a peaceful parliament session. All political parties have urged that they want to hold fruitful discussions on various issues including the issues of the farmers,&quot; the Speaker said.

In an address to party leaders of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked all political parties to support the government in conducting business in both Houses of the Parliament without disruption and in constructive discussion on issues of national importance.

The prime minister also said it would have been good had a consensus been reached on the presidential candidate ahead of the presidential poll.

On July 14 and July 15, the government briefed leaders of Opposition parties about the month-old stand-off with China and the situation in Kashmir in the aftermath of the killing of the seven Amarnath pilgrims.

The Opposition was informed about the situation on the ground in Doklam and what the government intended to do to de-escalate the tension in the disputed area. It assured them the issue will be resolved diplomatically.

The Opposition, that includes the Congress, CPI-M, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party, Nationalist Congress Psarty, BSP, Janata Dal-United, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and DMK, is likely to ask for a debate on the matter but may not be very aggressive.

Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has said in advance that GST roll-out will be raised during the session since the law in its present form is not the law that was originally drafted by his party, the Congress said on Sunday.

CPI-M leader Mohammad Salim said on Sunday that his party will raise the issues of cross border tensions with India and Pakistan, mob lynching by cow vigilantes, and the agrarian crisis.

The Trinamool Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal are likely to highlight the alleged targetting of Opposition leaders by central agencies like the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate.

The Monsoon Session concludes on August 11.

The 19-day Session is expected to be stormy with the Opposition likely to corner the government over the stand-off with China in Doklam, the killing of Hindu pilgrims in the terrorist attack in Amarnath, farmer suicides in Madhya Pradesh, and the roll-out of the GST

The Indian Parliament's Monsoon Session commences today (July 17), the same day that Members of Parliament cast their vote to elect the President. Both Houses of Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha will be adjourned today because of the death of sitting members. The 19-day Session is expected to be stormy with the Opposition likely to corner the government over key issues including the stand-off with China in Doklam, the killing of Hindu pilgrims in the terrorist attack in Amarnath, farmer suicides in Madhya Pradesh, the roll-out of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the communal violence in West Bengal. On Sunday the Speaker held an all-party meet to iron out differences between government and opposition parties. She said all political parties had assured a peaceful and constructive Session and said they would discuss several issues. "I want this Parliament session to be fruitful. All political parties have assured me that they will help in conducting a peaceful parliament session. All political parties have urged that they want to hold fruitful discussions on various issues including the issues of the farmers," the Speaker said. In an address to party leaders of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked all political parties to support the government in conducting business in both Houses of the Parliament without disruption and in constructive discussion on issues of national importance. The prime minister also said it would have been good had a consensus been reached on the presidential candidate ahead of the presidential poll. On July 14 and July 15, the government briefed leaders of Opposition parties about the month-old stand-off with China and the situation in Kashmir in the aftermath of the killing of the seven Amarnath pilgrims. The Opposition was informed about the situation on the ground in Doklam and what the government intended to do to de-escalate the tension in the disputed area. It assured them the issue will be resolved diplomatically. The Opposition, that includes the Congress, CPI-M, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party, Nationalist Congress Psarty, BSP, Janata Dal-United, the Rashtriya Janata Dal and DMK, is likely to ask for a debate on the matter but may not be very aggressive. Former Finance Minister P Chidambaram has said in advance that GST roll-out will be raised during the session since the law in its present form is not the law that was originally drafted by his party, the Congress said on Sunday. CPI-M leader Mohammad Salim said on Sunday that his party will raise the issues of cross border tensions with India and Pakistan, mob lynching by cow vigilantes, and the agrarian crisis. The Trinamool Congress and the Rashtriya Janata Dal are likely to highlight the alleged targetting of Opposition leaders by central agencies like the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. The Monsoon Session concludes on August 11.

Parliament's Monsoon Session begins today: What to expect

In a first, the Congress party has decided that it will not&nbsp;push for a Congress candidate for the presidential elections.&nbsp;

The name of Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who has served as the governor of West Bengal in the past, is doing the rounds as a consensus candidate for the opposition.

Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, is pushing for opposition unity and it is for this reason that she is amenable to the idea of Gopalkrishna Gandhi being put up as the presidential candidate of a united opposition.

Even some of the non-Congress opposition parties are sceptical to back a Congress candidate for the presidential election.

Sources in the Congress confirmed that the reason why Sonia Gandhi is open to a non-Congress candidate is because she doesn&rsquo;t want to give a walkover to BJP which has the numbers this time around for the President&rsquo;s election. &nbsp;

Though Meira Kumar&rsquo;s name also came up for discussion but there weren&rsquo;t many takers for the name. Many in the opposition are of the view that since BJP is going to propose an insider&rsquo;s name for the President, Mahatma&rsquo;s grandson may work as a glue for the entire opposition.&nbsp;

Sources also said that even Mamata Banerjee is amenable to the idea of having Gopalkrishna Gandhi as the presidential candidate of a united opposition. Though a formal meeting between Mamata Banerjee and Sonia Gandhi is scheduled for the third week of May, Sonia Gandhi has already met Omar Abdullah, Sitaram Yechury and Bihar&rsquo;s chief minister Nitish Kumar in this regard.

The idea is that unity during presidential polls should be a precursor for a grand alliance against BJP in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Congress is hopeful that many regional satraps who feel threatened by BJP&rsquo;s aggressive expansion may come around for a common front.&nbsp;

But the irony of the matter is that the idea of a combined front against BJP is an admission to the fact that Congress has reduced in stature and BJP has emerged as the new Congress.

(WION)

The name of Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who has served as the governor of West Bengal in the past, is doing the rounds as a consensus candidate for the opposition

In a first, the Congress party has decided that it will not push for a Congress candidate for the presidential elections. The name of Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who has served as the governor of West Bengal in the past, is doing the rounds as a consensus candidate for the opposition. Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, is pushing for opposition unity and it is for this reason that she is amenable to the idea of Gopalkrishna Gandhi being put up as the presidential candidate of a united opposition. Even some of the non-Congress opposition parties are sceptical to back a Congress candidate for the presidential election. Sources in the Congress confirmed that the reason why Sonia Gandhi is open to a non-Congress candidate is because she doesn’t want to give a walkover to BJP which has the numbers this time around for the President’s election. Though Meira Kumar’s name also came up for discussion but there weren’t many takers for the name. Many in the opposition are of the view that since BJP is going to propose an insider’s name for the President, Mahatma’s grandson may work as a glue for the entire opposition. Sources also said that even Mamata Banerjee is amenable to the idea of having Gopalkrishna Gandhi as the presidential candidate of a united opposition. Though a formal meeting between Mamata Banerjee and Sonia Gandhi is scheduled for the third week of May, Sonia Gandhi has already met Omar Abdullah, Sitaram Yechury and Bihar’s chief minister Nitish Kumar in this regard. The idea is that unity during presidential polls should be a precursor for a grand alliance against BJP in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Congress is hopeful that many regional satraps who feel threatened by BJP’s aggressive expansion may come around for a common front. But the irony of the matter is that the idea of a combined front against BJP is an admission to the fact that Congress has reduced in stature and BJP has emerged as the new Congress. (WION)

Congress, others expected to back Gopalkrishna Gandhi as president

One police officer was killed and two&nbsp;wounded Thursday in a shooting on Paris&#39;s Champs &Eacute;lys&eacute;es, police said, just days ahead of France&#39;s presidential election.

France&#39;s interior ministry said the attacker was killed in the incident in the early evening on the world-famous boulevard.&nbsp;

French President Francois Hollande said that a shooting on the Champs &Eacute;lys&eacute;eson Thursday evening was suspected to be &quot;of a terrorist nature&quot;.

The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the fatal shooting in Paris of a police officer on Thursday, in a statement by the jihadists&#39; propaganda agency Amaq.

&quot;The perpetrator of the attack in Champs &Eacute;lys&eacute;es in central Paris is Abu Yussef the Belgian and he is one of the Islamic State&#39;s fighters,&quot; it said.

The famous shopping street in the heart of the city, which is usually teeming with tourists and Parisians, was blocked by armed police and metro stations in the area were closed.

Dozens of vehicles from the emergency services were sent to the area.

The shooting comes just two days after police arrested two men in southern Marseille with weapons and explosives who were suspected of preparing an attack to disrupt the first-round of the presidential election on Sunday.

France is in a state of emergency and at its highest possible level of alert since a string of terror attacks that began in 2015, which have killed over 230 people.

Thousands of troops and armed police have been deployed to guard tourist hotspots such as the Champs &Eacute;lys&eacute;es or other potential targets like government buildings and religious sites.

Up until now, polls showed voters more concerned about unemployment and their spending power than terrorism or security, though analysts warned this would change in the event of further bloodshed.

For weeks, centrist former banker Macron and National Front (FN) leader Marine Le Pen have been out in front but opinion polls now show there is a chance that any of the four leading candidates could reach the second-round runoff on May 7.

Scandal-plagued conservative Francois Fillon and far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Melenchon have closed the gap substantially in the last two weeks.

(AFP)

Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the shooting on Champs ?lys?es

One police officer was killed and two wounded Thursday in a shooting on Paris's Champs Élysées, police said, just days ahead of France's presidential election. France's interior ministry said the attacker was killed in the incident in the early evening on the world-famous boulevard. French President Francois Hollande said that a shooting on the Champs Élyséeson Thursday evening was suspected to be "of a terrorist nature". The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the fatal shooting in Paris of a police officer on Thursday, in a statement by the jihadists' propaganda agency Amaq. "The perpetrator of the attack in Champs Élysées in central Paris is Abu Yussef the Belgian and he is one of the Islamic State's fighters," it said. The famous shopping street in the heart of the city, which is usually teeming with tourists and Parisians, was blocked by armed police and metro stations in the area were closed. Dozens of vehicles from the emergency services were sent to the area. The shooting comes just two days after police arrested two men in southern Marseille with weapons and explosives who were suspected of preparing an attack to disrupt the first-round of the presidential election on Sunday. France is in a state of emergency and at its highest possible level of alert since a string of terror attacks that began in 2015, which have killed over 230 people. Thousands of troops and armed police have been deployed to guard tourist hotspots such as the Champs Élysées or other potential targets like government buildings and religious sites. Up until now, polls showed voters more concerned about unemployment and their spending power than terrorism or security, though analysts warned this would change in the event of further bloodshed. For weeks, centrist former banker Macron and National Front (FN) leader Marine Le Pen have been out in front but opinion polls now show there is a chance that any of the four leading candidates could reach the second-round runoff on May 7. Scandal-plagued conservative Francois Fillon and far-left firebrand Jean-Luc Melenchon have closed the gap substantially in the last two weeks. (AFP)

France: One policeman killed, two wounded in Paris shooting

Candidates in France&#39;s presidential election made last-ditch appeals to sway undecided voters on Thursday as the third and fourth placed contenders kept up the pressure on the two hopefuls leading opinion polls.

Voters will cast ballots on Sunday in the first round of what has turned into the most unpredictable French election in memory, with four of the 11 candidates within reach of the two places for the run-off on May 7.

Pollsters see centrist Emmanuel Macron and far-right Marine Le Pen taking the top two places on Sunday and so going head-to-head in the run-off. That would break the normal rotation of power in France between the centre-left and centre-right.

Polls on the race to succeed the deeply unpopular socialist President Francois Hollande are so close that gaps between candidates fall within the margin of error.

A Harris Interactive poll showed Macron and Le Pen still in front, with the gap a bit wider than before. The centrist inched ahead to 24.5 per cent while Le Pen was a bit weaker on 21 per cent.

Conservative former prime minister Francois Fillon scored 20 per cent, meaning he was now gaining on Le Pen.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, a far left politician propelled from wildcard to genuine contender thanks to feisty television performances and smart social media campaign, was stable on 19 per cent. An Ifop-Fiducial poll showed roughly the same breakdown.

All 11 candidates fielded questions on television about their policies on Thursday evening, the last real chance in the election spotlight for some of them after a tumultuous campaign of surprises and scandal.

France&#39;s place in Europe

The election will decide the direction of France&#39;s 2.2 trillion euro economy, which vies with Britain for the rank of fifth largest in the world. With eurospectics Le Pen and Melenchon in the race, the outcome could have a bearing on France&#39;s place in Europe.

The outcome will be watched closely by France&#39;s allies given its role as a nuclear-armed permanent veto-wielding member of the UN&nbsp;Security Council and its military and diplomatic clout in the Middle East and West Africa.

Macron, a former banker who quit as economy minister last August to set up his independent &quot;En Marche!&quot; (&quot;Onwards!&quot;) movement, would beat Le Pen or any other candidate in the run-off, the Harris poll showed, echoing other polls.

On Thursday evening, Macron won the support of former prime minister Dominique de Villepin, a conservative Gaullist who won global celebrity by dramatically opposing US plans for war in Iraq.

Fillon, 63, was seen to be on an easy ride to the Elysee Palace at the beginning of the year but his campaign hit the rocks following nepotism allegations that he has denied.

His ratings have gradually recovered and on Thursday he redoubled attempts to dissuade his core voters from straying to Macron&#39;s camp.

Seizing on a foiled attack this week in which he and other candidates were seen as potential targets, Fillon sought to reinforce his credentials as a strong pair of hands on security.

&quot;In the fight against militant Islam, like on everything else, Emmanuel Macron&#39;s stance is blurry,&quot; Fillon told Le Figaro newspaper, adding he would take a much harder line with extremists.

Concern about candidates

Melenchon, in an interview with BFM TV, pressed his criticism of European Union institutions - a position that has increasingly worried investors as his support has grown.

He said France needed to use its influence to push through pro-growth reforms and renegotiate EU treaties.

&quot;I want people to know, for all of Europe to hear clearly, that this needs to change or it&#39;s not going to go on like this, it&#39;s not possible,&quot; Melenchon said.

His &quot;plan B&quot;, should reform discussions fail, would be to put France&#39;s exit from the EU to a referendum just as Britain did last summer.

&quot;People often say I&#39;m the one putting Europe at risk, that I want to leave. Listen - it&#39;s not me putting Europe at risk, I didn&#39;t make the British leave ... and we too are fed up.&quot;

The prospect of Melenchon or Le Pen, whose more strident anti-EU stance includes dumping the euro currency, reaching the run-off - or, even worse, both of them - has put pressure on French bond yields.

French 10-year bond yields fell briefly to a three-month low earlier on Thursday, though, as polls showed some stability.

(Reuters)

Pollsters see centrist Emmanuel Macron and far-right Marine Le Pen taking the top two places on Sunday

Candidates in France's presidential election made last-ditch appeals to sway undecided voters on Thursday as the third and fourth placed contenders kept up the pressure on the two hopefuls leading opinion polls. Voters will cast ballots on Sunday in the first round of what has turned into the most unpredictable French election in memory, with four of the 11 candidates within reach of the two places for the run-off on May 7. Pollsters see centrist Emmanuel Macron and far-right Marine Le Pen taking the top two places on Sunday and so going head-to-head in the run-off. That would break the normal rotation of power in France between the centre-left and centre-right. Polls on the race to succeed the deeply unpopular socialist President Francois Hollande are so close that gaps between candidates fall within the margin of error. A Harris Interactive poll showed Macron and Le Pen still in front, with the gap a bit wider than before. The centrist inched ahead to 24.5 per cent while Le Pen was a bit weaker on 21 per cent. Conservative former prime minister Francois Fillon scored 20 per cent, meaning he was now gaining on Le Pen. Jean-Luc Melenchon, a far left politician propelled from wildcard to genuine contender thanks to feisty television performances and smart social media campaign, was stable on 19 per cent. An Ifop-Fiducial poll showed roughly the same breakdown. All 11 candidates fielded questions on television about their policies on Thursday evening, the last real chance in the election spotlight for some of them after a tumultuous campaign of surprises and scandal. France's place in Europe The election will decide the direction of France's 2.2 trillion euro economy, which vies with Britain for the rank of fifth largest in the world. With eurospectics Le Pen and Melenchon in the race, the outcome could have a bearing on France's place in Europe. The outcome will be watched closely by France's allies given its role as a nuclear-armed permanent veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council and its military and diplomatic clout in the Middle East and West Africa. Macron, a former banker who quit as economy minister last August to set up his independent "En Marche!" ("Onwards!") movement, would beat Le Pen or any other candidate in the run-off, the Harris poll showed, echoing other polls. On Thursday evening, Macron won the support of former prime minister Dominique de Villepin, a conservative Gaullist who won global celebrity by dramatically opposing US plans for war in Iraq. Fillon, 63, was seen to be on an easy ride to the Elysee Palace at the beginning of the year but his campaign hit the rocks following nepotism allegations that he has denied. His ratings have gradually recovered and on Thursday he redoubled attempts to dissuade his core voters from straying to Macron's camp. Seizing on a foiled attack this week in which he and other candidates were seen as potential targets, Fillon sought to reinforce his credentials as a strong pair of hands on security. "In the fight against militant Islam, like on everything else, Emmanuel Macron's stance is blurry," Fillon told Le Figaro newspaper, adding he would take a much harder line with extremists. Concern about candidates Melenchon, in an interview with BFM TV, pressed his criticism of European Union institutions - a position that has increasingly worried investors as his support has grown. He said France needed to use its influence to push through pro-growth reforms and renegotiate EU treaties. "I want people to know, for all of Europe to hear clearly, that this needs to change or it's not going to go on like this, it's not possible," Melenchon said. His "plan B", should reform discussions fail, would be to put France's exit from the EU to a referendum just as Britain did last summer. "People often say I'm the one putting Europe at risk, that I want to leave. Listen - it's not me putting Europe at risk, I didn't make the British leave ... and we too are fed up." The prospect of Melenchon or Le Pen, whose more strident anti-EU stance includes dumping the euro currency, reaching the run-off - or, even worse, both of them - has put pressure on French bond yields. French 10-year bond yields fell briefly to a three-month low earlier on Thursday, though, as polls showed some stability. (Reuters)

France presidential elections: Candidates make last attempt to sway voters

The fact-checking is finished, and the polls to determine who won and who lost will soon be wiped from our collective memory. While it lasted, it wasn&rsquo;t exactly waterboarding but for many it was an unambiguous case of torture. The three debates are over, praise the Lord. America is now entering the brief phase in which it can look back at the weirdest US presidential campaign in history, and look forward to the denouement when the votes are finally counted during the night of November 8.

THE &ldquo;PRESIDENTAL&rdquo; DEBATE

Most commentators of the debates have tried to analyse not only what came out of the candidates&rsquo; mouths, but also the sniffles that emerged from Donald Trump&rsquo;s nose. Some noticed that throughout the debates Hillary Clinton made very effective use of her teeth, visible through a studied but authentically charming smile, whose brightness was accentuated by her high cheekbones. That smile came across as a demonstration of Clinton&rsquo;s truly &ldquo;presidental&rdquo; temperament.

She harnessed her smile as a powerful defensive and offensive weapon that enabled her, first of all, to parry Trump&rsquo;s attacks with an expression of amused doubt and even polite ridicule as he sought to embarrass her. More significantly, Clinton used it as a transitional gesture to express the confidence she had in her well-prepared professional boasts and responses to his desultory attacks. Given the lack of seriously argued content on either side in any of the three debates, Clinton&rsquo;s smile may be what best accounts for the impression expressed by a majority of viewers that she was the consistent &ldquo;winner.&rdquo;

We&rsquo;ve now witnessed a series of thoroughly awful and depressing &ldquo;presidential debates.&rdquo; They were neither presidential in style, nor debates in substance. There was nothing to be learned from them, not even about the characters of the candidates. And the commentators, like the media and moderators who organised the debates, were just as bad as the candidates. Confusing political dialogue with a sporting event, they focused on one thing: their precious fact checks&mdash;keeping a scorecard of lies, or contradictions of known or assumed facts. As if government was only about sticking to the facts! And as if facts were just objects in the environment that one could bend down, pick up and show to the camera.

There were lies galore in the final debate, especially on Trump&rsquo;s side, to the delight of news analysts. But the two most depressing, even chilling lies went unnoticed by all commentators. They belong to Clinton. Here they are: &ldquo;On the day I was &hellip; monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, [Trump] was hosting the&nbsp;Celebrity Apprentice.&rdquo; And, &ldquo;America is great because it&rsquo;s good.&rdquo;

What&rsquo;s chilling about the first is the new equivalence between &ldquo;bringing to justice&rdquo; and assassination. It is a Wild West vigilante mentality, which obviously has its place in US culture, but doesn&rsquo;t fit with the idea of being presidential or even constitutional. It does fit with the notion of drone wars, which should give us all pause. And it was spoken by the same person who, when describing the outcome of the Libya campaign, blurted out &ldquo;we came, we saw, he died&rdquo; followed by a loud chortle.

The second affirmation is the basis of American exceptionalism. It is eerily consistent with George W. Bush&rsquo;s Manichean view dividing the world unto &ldquo;us&rdquo; (the good) and &ldquo;them&rdquo; (the evil).&nbsp; Many people think or at least hope that one&rsquo;s political leaders are doing as much good as they can. But does anyone seriously believe there is such a thing as a nation that&rsquo;s good in its essence?

Americans are routinely taught to suppose that, and never to reason about it in a Socratic fashion by asking themselves what &ldquo;good&rdquo; is. Everyone has an idea that there are places where it&rsquo;s good to live, good to do business, good to go to school, good to practice the arts, etc. But the idea of good as an absolute quality applied to a nation takes us back to the Puritan origins of the United States of America and the mentality that authorised European settlers to eradicate the native peoples because the civilisation they represented was &ldquo;good&rdquo;&mdash;blessed by God&mdash;and that the native populations were an obstacle to creating a nation intent on being a moral beacon for the world.

AN INEVITABLE CLINTON VICTORY

Since the first debate, the news media have listed and analysed pages of lies and distorted facts produced by the two candidates. But they never mention their most sinister contradictions of moral and historical truth, except to praise them as positive sounding utterances within a sea of negativity.

As not only the nation but the entire world prepares for a now inevitable Clinton victory in November, these issues matter as they never mattered before. This election cycle has taught us a lot about American democracy, the two-party system and the marketing of political candidates. Whatever one thinks of Bernie Sanders (hero or traitor) or even of WikiLeaks (window into the actual practices of politicians or criminal enterprise), we now know things that were formerly hidden from view.

In this campaign, the face of American democracy has changed. The Republican Party has imploded in the most embarrassing fashion. Trump&rsquo;s takeover of the Grand Old Party (GOP) could end up seriously and permanently modifying the now traditional duopoly of the two parties.

But the Democratic Party has also seen undergone a crisis that bodes ill for its own future. A generational rift has emerged in which the millennials have distanced themselves from what was traditionally the party of youthful renewal. Depending on how the newly formed Clinton administration responds to the identification of youth with the anti-oligarchic &ldquo;revolution&rdquo; promised by Sanders, the party and the incoming US administration may have difficulty maintaining its position as a potentially dominant political force, whether or not Clinton&rsquo;s election improves the party&rsquo;s position in the Senate and Congress.

A late October surprise now seems less and less likely, if only because of Trump&rsquo;s propensity for self-sabotage. But Clinton&rsquo;s negative image among voters still has Democrats worried.

Over the past six months the Clinton campaign has based everything on painting Trump as an unhinged, loose cannon with a few loose wires in his brain. Trump has obliged them by regularly providing evidence to support that thesis.

The most recent version of the Democrats&rsquo; scare tactics goes beyond the election itself. It posits that after losing, Trump will attempt to lead a populist movement mobilising the fascist and racist instincts he has appealed to. Almost on cue, by holding back from promising that he will accept the results, Trump has comforted that very idea, validating the Democrats&rsquo; electoral propaganda.

WHAT CLINTON AND TRUMP SYMBOLISE

But there&rsquo;s another dimension to this election, which has little to do with the actual personalities of the candidates. Each is a symbol of something else. Clinton is the incarnation of the system in all its aggressive collective glory: American exceptionalism, military might, Wall Street, the myth of free enterprise where everyone can be a creative entrepreneur, free trade. In contrast, Trump has assumed the symbolic role of the angry adolescent, the rebellious individual, the rock star challenging the system and all its constraining power.

American culture abhors constraint of any kind, as surely as nature abhors a vacuum. Hillary represents success in the sense of &ldquo;adult&rdquo; conformity built on unquestioned authority. Trump is the mythical &ldquo;rebel without a cause,&rdquo; ready to create havoc by changing the rules of the game, because so many people feel&mdash;without necessarily understanding why&mdash;that the system is alien and oppressive. This comes in spite of the fact that the system has always been kind to Trump himself.

The Clinton campaign claims that Trump is a threat to democracy. This is a clever endgame strategy because it carries the assumption that the existing political system is a true, honest-to-God democracy. If democracy didn&rsquo;t exist, it couldn&rsquo;t be threatened. But we know that the US political system&mdash;the one for which Clinton is the symbolic figurehead&mdash;is no longer a democracy (if it ever was), but a <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746">carefully structured oligarchy</a>. If voters recognised this, they might begin to think that Clinton may not be right: that America isn&rsquo;t necessarily &ldquo;good.&rdquo; But this is the one thing that Trump can&rsquo;t teach them, and can&rsquo;t put forward, because he himself belongs to the oligarchic class.

The real paradox of this election cycle is that Sanders, for the first time since possibly Franklin Roosevelt, created the impression that there might be a choice outside of the oligarchy. That hope was dashed in the primaries, with a little help from the Democratic National Committee, not averse to loading the dice when necessary.

But the rise of Trump and the well-executed elimination of Sanders meant that instead of there being the usual anodyne choice between two slightly contrasting types of reasonable establishment oligarchs (Democrats vs Republicans), this time it came down to the choice between two very different representatives of the same oligarchy: one predictable (responsible) and the other unpredictable (rebellious). This made the predictable one (Clinton) seem wiser than she actually is and the unpredictable one more subversive than he is, elevating Trump to the status of the daring challenger of the status quo.

FLAWED BUT DEMOCRATIC

The presidential electoral system is visibly flawed as this author has <a href="http://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/feeling-the-bern-in-november-can-change-system-77362/">pointed out elsewhere</a>. In spite of its imperfection, it was designed for democracy, and so long as people believe in the reality or at least the possible reality of democracy, it can survive and even thrive. But belief must be based on something solid, an understanding of how political decisions are made. One of the explanations for Trump&rsquo;s unexpected rise is the utter failure of civic education in the US, which has resulted in a lot of people sharing a general feeling of resignation in the face of oligarchic control.

Although the Democrats want us to believe otherwise, it isn&rsquo;t democracy that&rsquo;s threatened. It&rsquo;s the symbolic system of civic virtue that has been undermined by both parties&mdash;the Democratic Party by assuming and tightening its control, reaffirming its commitment to oligarchy, and the Republican Party by utterly and perhaps irretrievably losing control of the population that has followed the GOP&rsquo;s emotional programming.

Hillary Clinton will win the election. Donald Trump will protest. But in spite of the fear tactics promoted by Democrats, Trump is unlikely to lead a movement based on the regressive themes of his campaign. He simply isn&rsquo;t a leader and never has been. His voters will be bitter and disappointed, and it will be up to the Republican Party to seek a way of channeling their frustration. But having invested too much in their AR-15s, its militants will not adopt the idea of taking to the streets with their pitchforks.

The next chapter of American politics will be an interesting one, in which the pressure will be on everyone to redefine who they are within a newly delineated political spectrum as well as what they stand for&mdash;the losers as well as the winners.

For Hillary Clinton and her smile, it could very well resemble a four-year teething period.

America is now entering the brief phase in which it can look back at the weirdest US presidential campaign in history

The fact-checking is finished, and the polls to determine who won and who lost will soon be wiped from our collective memory. While it lasted, it wasn’t exactly waterboarding but for many it was an unambiguous case of torture. The three debates are over, praise the Lord. America is now entering the brief phase in which it can look back at the weirdest US presidential campaign in history, and look forward to the denouement when the votes are finally counted during the night of November 8. THE “PRESIDENTAL” DEBATE Most commentators of the debates have tried to analyse not only what came out of the candidates’ mouths, but also the sniffles that emerged from Donald Trump’s nose. Some noticed that throughout the debates Hillary Clinton made very effective use of her teeth, visible through a studied but authentically charming smile, whose brightness was accentuated by her high cheekbones. That smile came across as a demonstration of Clinton’s truly “presidental” temperament. She harnessed her smile as a powerful defensive and offensive weapon that enabled her, first of all, to parry Trump’s attacks with an expression of amused doubt and even polite ridicule as he sought to embarrass her. More significantly, Clinton used it as a transitional gesture to express the confidence she had in her well-prepared professional boasts and responses to his desultory attacks. Given the lack of seriously argued content on either side in any of the three debates, Clinton’s smile may be what best accounts for the impression expressed by a majority of viewers that she was the consistent “winner.” We’ve now witnessed a series of thoroughly awful and depressing “presidential debates.” They were neither presidential in style, nor debates in substance. There was nothing to be learned from them, not even about the characters of the candidates. And the commentators, like the media and moderators who organised the debates, were just as bad as the candidates. Confusing political dialogue with a sporting event, they focused on one thing: their precious fact checks—keeping a scorecard of lies, or contradictions of known or assumed facts. As if government was only about sticking to the facts! And as if facts were just objects in the environment that one could bend down, pick up and show to the camera. There were lies galore in the final debate, especially on Trump’s side, to the delight of news analysts. But the two most depressing, even chilling lies went unnoticed by all commentators. They belong to Clinton. Here they are: “On the day I was … monitoring the raid that brought Osama bin Laden to justice, [Trump] was hosting the Celebrity Apprentice.” And, “America is great because it’s good.” What’s chilling about the first is the new equivalence between “bringing to justice” and assassination. It is a Wild West vigilante mentality, which obviously has its place in US culture, but doesn’t fit with the idea of being presidential or even constitutional. It does fit with the notion of drone wars, which should give us all pause. And it was spoken by the same person who, when describing the outcome of the Libya campaign, blurted out “we came, we saw, he died” followed by a loud chortle. The second affirmation is the basis of American exceptionalism. It is eerily consistent with George W. Bush’s Manichean view dividing the world unto “us” (the good) and “them” (the evil). Many people think or at least hope that one’s political leaders are doing as much good as they can. But does anyone seriously believe there is such a thing as a nation that’s good in its essence? Americans are routinely taught to suppose that, and never to reason about it in a Socratic fashion by asking themselves what “good” is. Everyone has an idea that there are places where it’s good to live, good to do business, good to go to school, good to practice the arts, etc. But the idea of good as an absolute quality applied to a nation takes us back to the Puritan origins of the United States of America and the mentality that authorised European settlers to eradicate the native peoples because the civilisation they represented was “good”—blessed by God—and that the native populations were an obstacle to creating a nation intent on being a moral beacon for the world. AN INEVITABLE CLINTON VICTORY Since the first debate, the news media have listed and analysed pages of lies and distorted facts produced by the two candidates. But they never mention their most sinister contradictions of moral and historical truth, except to praise them as positive sounding utterances within a sea of negativity. As not only the nation but the entire world prepares for a now inevitable Clinton victory in November, these issues matter as they never mattered before. This election cycle has taught us a lot about American democracy, the two-party system and the marketing of political candidates. Whatever one thinks of Bernie Sanders (hero or traitor) or even of WikiLeaks (window into the actual practices of politicians or criminal enterprise), we now know things that were formerly hidden from view. In this campaign, the face of American democracy has changed. The Republican Party has imploded in the most embarrassing fashion. Trump’s takeover of the Grand Old Party (GOP) could end up seriously and permanently modifying the now traditional duopoly of the two parties. But the Democratic Party has also seen undergone a crisis that bodes ill for its own future. A generational rift has emerged in which the millennials have distanced themselves from what was traditionally the party of youthful renewal. Depending on how the newly formed Clinton administration responds to the identification of youth with the anti-oligarchic “revolution” promised by Sanders, the party and the incoming US administration may have difficulty maintaining its position as a potentially dominant political force, whether or not Clinton’s election improves the party’s position in the Senate and Congress. A late October surprise now seems less and less likely, if only because of Trump’s propensity for self-sabotage. But Clinton’s negative image among voters still has Democrats worried. Over the past six months the Clinton campaign has based everything on painting Trump as an unhinged, loose cannon with a few loose wires in his brain. Trump has obliged them by regularly providing evidence to support that thesis. The most recent version of the Democrats’ scare tactics goes beyond the election itself. It posits that after losing, Trump will attempt to lead a populist movement mobilising the fascist and racist instincts he has appealed to. Almost on cue, by holding back from promising that he will accept the results, Trump has comforted that very idea, validating the Democrats’ electoral propaganda. WHAT CLINTON AND TRUMP SYMBOLISE But there’s another dimension to this election, which has little to do with the actual personalities of the candidates. Each is a symbol of something else. Clinton is the incarnation of the system in all its aggressive collective glory: American exceptionalism, military might, Wall Street, the myth of free enterprise where everyone can be a creative entrepreneur, free trade. In contrast, Trump has assumed the symbolic role of the angry adolescent, the rebellious individual, the rock star challenging the system and all its constraining power. American culture abhors constraint of any kind, as surely as nature abhors a vacuum. Hillary represents success in the sense of “adult” conformity built on unquestioned authority. Trump is the mythical “rebel without a cause,” ready to create havoc by changing the rules of the game, because so many people feel—without necessarily understanding why—that the system is alien and oppressive. This comes in spite of the fact that the system has always been kind to Trump himself. The Clinton campaign claims that Trump is a threat to democracy. This is a clever endgame strategy because it carries the assumption that the existing political system is a true, honest-to-God democracy. If democracy didn’t exist, it couldn’t be threatened. But we know that the US political system—the one for which Clinton is the symbolic figurehead—is no longer a democracy (if it ever was), but a carefully structured oligarchy. If voters recognised this, they might begin to think that Clinton may not be right: that America isn’t necessarily “good.” But this is the one thing that Trump can’t teach them, and can’t put forward, because he himself belongs to the oligarchic class. The real paradox of this election cycle is that Sanders, for the first time since possibly Franklin Roosevelt, created the impression that there might be a choice outside of the oligarchy. That hope was dashed in the primaries, with a little help from the Democratic National Committee, not averse to loading the dice when necessary. But the rise of Trump and the well-executed elimination of Sanders meant that instead of there being the usual anodyne choice between two slightly contrasting types of reasonable establishment oligarchs (Democrats vs Republicans), this time it came down to the choice between two very different representatives of the same oligarchy: one predictable (responsible) and the other unpredictable (rebellious). This made the predictable one (Clinton) seem wiser than she actually is and the unpredictable one more subversive than he is, elevating Trump to the status of the daring challenger of the status quo. FLAWED BUT DEMOCRATIC The presidential electoral system is visibly flawed as this author has pointed out elsewhere. In spite of its imperfection, it was designed for democracy, and so long as people believe in the reality or at least the possible reality of democracy, it can survive and even thrive. But belief must be based on something solid, an understanding of how political decisions are made. One of the explanations for Trump’s unexpected rise is the utter failure of civic education in the US, which has resulted in a lot of people sharing a general feeling of resignation in the face of oligarchic control. Although the Democrats want us to believe otherwise, it isn’t democracy that’s threatened. It’s the symbolic system of civic virtue that has been undermined by both parties—the Democratic Party by assuming and tightening its control, reaffirming its commitment to oligarchy, and the Republican Party by utterly and perhaps irretrievably losing control of the population that has followed the GOP’s emotional programming. Hillary Clinton will win the election. Donald Trump will protest. But in spite of the fear tactics promoted by Democrats, Trump is unlikely to lead a movement based on the regressive themes of his campaign. He simply isn’t a leader and never has been. His voters will be bitter and disappointed, and it will be up to the Republican Party to seek a way of channeling their frustration. But having invested too much in their AR-15s, its militants will not adopt the idea of taking to the streets with their pitchforks. The next chapter of American politics will be an interesting one, in which the pressure will be on everyone to redefine who they are within a newly delineated political spectrum as well as what they stand for—the losers as well as the winners. For Hillary Clinton and her smile, it could very well resemble a four-year teething period.

Clinton Will Win, Trump Will Protest

A 19-year-old British man has been charged for trying to grab a police officer&#39;s gun at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas in a bid to kill the Republican presidential nominee. 
 
According to a complaint filed in federal court in Nevada, Michael Sandford tried to disarm the officer at Saturday&#39;s rally at the Mystere Theatre in the Treasure Island Casino before being overpowered. 
 
It said that the young man told a Secret Service agent after his arrest that he had driven from California to Las Vegas &quot;to kill Trump,&quot; and had been to a range a day earlier to learn to shoot as he had never fired a gun before. 
 
&quot;Sandford acknowledged that he would likely only be able to fire one to two rounds and stated he was convinced he would be killed by law enforcement during his attempt on Trump&#39;s life,&quot; the complaint said. 
 
It added that Sandford told investigators he had purchased tickets for a rally in Phoenix, where he &quot;would try again to kill Trump&quot; in the event his plan in Las Vegas failed. 
 
Video of his arrest carried by US media show a skinny man with short brown hair and a grey T-shirt being escorted out of the rally by police officers with his hands behind his back. 
 
The prosecutor&#39;s office said Sandford was ordered held without bond, as he was considered dangerous and represented a flight risk. 
 
Britain&#39;s Foreign Office is &quot;providing assistance&quot; in the case, a spokesman said. 
 
&#39;Would try this again&#39; 
 
The complaint said Sandford had told investigators that he had been in the United States for about 18 months, and had lived in Hoboken, New Jersey, before traveling to California. 
 
&nbsp;Sandford told investigators that he had targeted officer Ameel Jacob&#39;s gun because it was in an unlocked position and would be the easiest way to gain access to a weapon at the rally where those attending had to go through metal detectors. 
 
&quot;Sandford further stated that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try this again,&quot; according to the complaint. 
 
It said Sandford told the Secret Service that he had been plotting to kill Trump for about a year and finally decided to act on Saturday, as &quot;he finally felt confident to do it.&quot; 
 
His arrest comes amid one of the nastiest US presidential campaigns in recent history, dominated by violent rhetoric, with Trump lashing out at Mexicans, Muslims and other groups. 
 
The real estate billionaire enjoys Secret Service protection but also has his own private security detail that has been accused of using unnecessary force to remove people from events. 
 
A number of protesters have been arrested at his rallies where riot police are deployed in force and there have been mounting demonstrations during his campaign appearances in recent months. 
 
Sandford is due to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on July 5. He faces more than 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if found guilty on the charge of &quot;act of violence on restricted grounds.&quot; 
(AFP)

The man had apparently driven from California to Las Vegas to kill Trump and had visited a shooting range a day earlier to learn to shoot

A 19-year-old British man has been charged for trying to grab a police officer's gun at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas in a bid to kill the Republican presidential nominee. According to a complaint filed in federal court in Nevada, Michael Sandford tried to disarm the officer at Saturday's rally at the Mystere Theatre in the Treasure Island Casino before being overpowered. It said that the young man told a Secret Service agent after his arrest that he had driven from California to Las Vegas "to kill Trump," and had been to a range a day earlier to learn to shoot as he had never fired a gun before. "Sandford acknowledged that he would likely only be able to fire one to two rounds and stated he was convinced he would be killed by law enforcement during his attempt on Trump's life," the complaint said. It added that Sandford told investigators he had purchased tickets for a rally in Phoenix, where he "would try again to kill Trump" in the event his plan in Las Vegas failed. Video of his arrest carried by US media show a skinny man with short brown hair and a grey T-shirt being escorted out of the rally by police officers with his hands behind his back. The prosecutor's office said Sandford was ordered held without bond, as he was considered dangerous and represented a flight risk. Britain's Foreign Office is "providing assistance" in the case, a spokesman said. 'Would try this again' The complaint said Sandford had told investigators that he had been in the United States for about 18 months, and had lived in Hoboken, New Jersey, before traveling to California. Sandford told investigators that he had targeted officer Ameel Jacob's gun because it was in an unlocked position and would be the easiest way to gain access to a weapon at the rally where those attending had to go through metal detectors. "Sandford further stated that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try this again," according to the complaint. It said Sandford told the Secret Service that he had been plotting to kill Trump for about a year and finally decided to act on Saturday, as "he finally felt confident to do it." His arrest comes amid one of the nastiest US presidential campaigns in recent history, dominated by violent rhetoric, with Trump lashing out at Mexicans, Muslims and other groups. The real estate billionaire enjoys Secret Service protection but also has his own private security detail that has been accused of using unnecessary force to remove people from events. A number of protesters have been arrested at his rallies where riot police are deployed in force and there have been mounting demonstrations during his campaign appearances in recent months. Sandford is due to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on July 5. He faces more than 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if found guilty on the charge of "act of violence on restricted grounds." (AFP)

19-year-old Briton tries to grab cop's gun and kill Trump, charged

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans to quit his role as head of France&#39;s Les Republicains party on Saturday, setting up a potential bid to become head of state for a second time. 
 
Supporters of Les Republicains and other Right and Centre-Right parties will vote in November to decide who will be their candidate in the 2017 presidential election. 
 
The winner will face the far-right National Front&#39;s Marine Le Pen and a Socialist candidate, likely to be President Francois Hollande. 
 
Sarkozy would not be able to run in those presidential primaries if he remained head of the party. He would need to resign two weeks before the application deadline on September 9. 
 
&quot;This national council will be my last one as president of Les Republicains,&quot; he told a party meeting, calling for a fair contest and no acrimony between the potential nominees. 
 
&quot;This primary will be a time of competition between some strong personalities, between people of significant talent,&quot; he said. 
 
&quot;When the right goes into battle it has a front on the left and a front on the extreme right. That is why it is unacceptable that we should attack each other.&quot; 
 
For much of this year, Centre-Right rival Alain Juppe has outpaced Sarkozy in opinion polls, but the man who was president between 2007 and 2012 is making a comeback among party supporters, a recent survey showed, a sign the battle could be more open than many thought. 
 
(Reuters)

The former president is making a comeback among party supporters, a recent survey showed

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy announced plans to quit his role as head of France's Les Republicains party on Saturday, setting up a potential bid to become head of state for a second time. Supporters of Les Republicains and other Right and Centre-Right parties will vote in November to decide who will be their candidate in the 2017 presidential election. The winner will face the far-right National Front's Marine Le Pen and a Socialist candidate, likely to be President Francois Hollande. Sarkozy would not be able to run in those presidential primaries if he remained head of the party. He would need to resign two weeks before the application deadline on September 9. "This national council will be my last one as president of Les Republicains," he told a party meeting, calling for a fair contest and no acrimony between the potential nominees. "This primary will be a time of competition between some strong personalities, between people of significant talent," he said. "When the right goes into battle it has a front on the left and a front on the extreme right. That is why it is unacceptable that we should attack each other." For much of this year, Centre-Right rival Alain Juppe has outpaced Sarkozy in opinion polls, but the man who was president between 2007 and 2012 is making a comeback among party supporters, a recent survey showed, a sign the battle could be more open than many thought. (Reuters)

Sarkozy sets up French presidential bid by quitting party role

presidential-election

Presidential Election, News on Presidential Election, stories on Presidential Election, articles on Presidential Election, Presidential Election stories at Wion, Presidential Election news, Presidential Election latest news