Not all Americans are Barking Nutters 640


That should not need to be said, but given the antics of Clinton and Trump it is as well to say it anyway to remind ourselves. Here is Green Party candidate Jill Stein explaining that you do not have to vote for either a “proto-fascist or a warmonger”.

The journalists of course attempt to say that to vote for Stein is to let Trump in. Stein sticks strongly to the argument that the “Queen of Corruption” and “Warmonger” Clinton is not in fact a real choice from Trump. This is of course absolutely true, Clinton is a dangerous extremist – she just happens to support the extremism of the right wing establishment and its poodle media.

I have been fascinated by the apoplexy generated in the pretend left by the notion that people ought not to vote for Clinton. The go-to argument is that not to vote for her is in itself an act of misogyny. I wonder if they will argue the same for Marine Le Pen. The second argument is that a corrupt warmonger is better than the racist bigot Trump. The interesting thing is, close examination reveals an almost 100% correlation between those apoplectic at any lack of support for Clinton, and those who supported Tony Blair. The idea that being an ultra-corrupt warmonger is not a big problem is obviously a fixed principle with these people.


640 thoughts on “Not all Americans are Barking Nutters

1 2 3 4 5
  • Habbabkuk

    Anyway, Habbabkuk is looking forward eagerly to the 22nd of November 2016. Why so?

    Monday and Tuesday will see a continuation of frenzied posting on the respective merits of Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton, with occasional squeaks about why a vote for Mrs Stein would not be a wasted vote. Most of this will come from persons of whom little is known except that they are not American voters.

    The rest of next week will be filled by angry claims about how the election was rigged in favour whoever it turns out has won the election. I expect much reference to impeccable sources such as Professor Michel Chudovussky (have I got that name right?), The Saker, Dimitry Orlov and so on.

    Thereafter – for a week or so – there is likely to be much fact-based, sober analysis of why whoever turns out to have won will be a catastrophe for the USA and indeed the whole world. I exempt from this prediction the adherents to the view that the outcome is of no importance given that US policy is in fact run by the deep state.

    And – finally! at last! – normal service will be resumed along the well-rehearsed line the USA and its Western vassals are responsible for all the ills of the universe.

  • lysias

    Ricard Nixon was someone who liked to refer to himself in the third person. I wonder what the psychological significance is.

  • Anon1

    Dear Deidre,

    My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront him, he denies everything. What’s worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It’s so humiliating.

    Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn’t even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around, shoot pool with his buddies and have sex with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills. Since our daughter went away to college and then married, he doesn’t even pretend to like me, and hints that I may be a lesbian.

    Please help. What should I do?
    Confused…..

    Dear Confused,

    Grow up, dump him and go for as much of the divorce settlement as you can.You don’t need him anymore but you should take his for all he’s worth. For fuck sake woman, you’re running for President of the United States, and it doesn’t look like that’s going to pan out very well.

    • Muscleguy

      It could well be that Ms Clinton has done a deal with her husband. He gets his physical needs met through paid for sex while she gets not to have to have sex with him as well as not feeling guilty about it. Wouldn’t be the first such deal and it beats him having affairs.

      You may not like the existence of prostitution but I grew up in New Zealand that has legalised it for harm reduction reasons. You will never be rid of it so accept that it exists and move to regularise it and tax it and lessen potential harms. Moral condemnation helps nobody and just makes you look holier than thou. BTW I have never and wish never to have had sex with a prostitute, I just don’t see why my preferences should constraint two other consenting adults.

      • kief

        Of course if true that would fall under the category ‘None of your bizness’ unless you want to live in a glass house and share your intimacies with any and all.

  • Habbabkuk

    Since we are talking about history and given that one of our esteemed overseas commenters recently mentioned that WW1 broke out because none of the protagonists was prepared to “back down”, I thought I might draw readers’ attention to a book on the outbreak of WW! which offers a rather different perspective.

    It is “The Sleepwalkers: how Europe went to war in 1914” (publ. Allen Lane, 2012) – the perspective of which is clear from the title, of course.

    It is by Mr Christopher Clark, a specialist in German history (cf his “Iron Kingdom”, a history of the state of Prussia), who is not only an Antipodean by origin but also Professor of Modern History at Cambridge (the English Cambridge, not its American cousin).

    Alongside having been shortlisted for various prestigious prizes in the field of political writing, his book has attracted most positive reviews from various established historians including at least one who has been praised on this blog, ie, Professor Ian Kershaw (“Excellent…The book is stylishly written as well as superb scholarship. No analysis of the origins of the First World War will henceforth be able to bypass this magisterial work.”). On the possibly negative side, however, I have been unable to find a review by the criminal lawyer and “historian” (whose name escapes me for the moment) who has apparently written a book “proving” that the Reichstag Fire was a false flag operation by the Nazis rqher than the work of a demented former Dutch Communist names Marinus van de Lubbe.

    Habbabkuk recommends!

  • lysias

    During the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Kennedy was well aware of and dtermined to avoid the situation in 1914, where neithwr side felt able to back down. He therefore offered in secret terms to Khrushchev terms that allowed Khrushchev to believe that the USSR had not been humiliated.

    With the result that the world was spared a world war that would probably have been a nuclear one.

    Unfortunately the war camps in both countries soon ended the rule of the two men who avoided war.

    • glenn_uk

      Didn’t that deal include assurances that nuclear weapons would not be placed on the USSR’s boarders? A promise that was not honoured, astonishingly enough.

    • Habbabkuk

      As the author of the excellent book I referred to demonstrates: in 1914, sleepwalkers, not “refusal to back down”.

      Hence the JFK/Cuban missile crisis analogy is otiose.

      • bevin

        Is there a real difference between ‘sleepwalking’ and the sort of unrealistic thinking that lies behind ‘refusing to back down’?
        Both are loose terms and both suggest that the decision makers in the corridors of power in Europe were, for various reasons, unprepared to assess realistically the consequences of the preparations for war that they were authorising.
        As to the JFK/Cuban Missile crisis-that is another story, altogether.

        • Habbabkuk

          I think there is: unrealistic thinking is still thinking whereas sleep walking is the opposite of thought.

          • bevin

            They weren’t literally ‘sleepwallking’ you know. It was just that they were so unrealistic in their thinking, essentially because they were unwilling to adjust to change, that they seemed to be sleepwalking.
            But they weren’t really

          • Habbabkuk

            I realise that the word “sleepwalking” is being used figuratively – to describe a lack of thought rather than thinking unrealistically. But I agree that a lack of thought (thinking) is certainly highly conducive to not being able to adjust to change.

        • Muscleguy

          It wasn’t sleepwalking so much as a failure to question habits and viewpoints as well as recognise that technological changes meant a European war was not going to be like any of the previous ones. It is also possible that disproportionate battles where automatic firearms destroyed native armies persuaded the colonial powers that such weapons would prove as efficacious against Europeans as Fuzzy-Wuzzies.

  • Sharp Ears

    Has anyone noticed that neither candidate discusses policies?

    This is from an interview with Cynthia McKinney, the President the Americans were not permitted to have.

    ‘CM: In fact, according to a recent study, Whites are now dying prematurely and a lot of the angst being felt in the 2016 election is a result of the fact that the genocide and human trafficking that White males’ ancestors engaged in—with which they never came to terms, even to this day with the descendants of the victims–, well, now, the country that they built is no longer theirs and their supremacy has been displaced and now they are treated just like they treated us!

    Yes, I know it’s harsh, but it’s the truth! So, until we can deal with these truths, the U.S. will continue its decline, even as the snake-pit thrives. And that’s because we will all be easily pitted against each other rather than turning to each other for help, solace, and liberation. The U.S. is kind of like a husband and wife who are now at each others’ throats. Either we will divorce and go our separate ways or we will work together to salvage our relationship. I would like for the people of the U.S. to acknowledge the past–as painful as it is–and then move forward together in an even stronger relationship! My parents were married for over 50 years….

    Now, why are we at each others’ throats? Because as long as we’re fighting each other over really unnecessary things, the big criminals paraded before us on television as our “leaders” never get justice! Nor the ones lurking in the shadows, directing the so-called leaders, depositing their ill-gotten gains in burgeoning bank accounts. The U.S. is being stripped to the bone. Everything the U.S. used to be is being erased. We can’t even educate our citizens any more because the relationship between teacher and student–between professor and students–is mediated by the Chamber of Commerce and bankers. We’re sicker because the relationship between the doctor and the patient is mediated by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and profit-seeking corporations.

    Our infrastructure is falling apart because the relationship between the elected official and the voter is mediated by corporations looking for an easy buck from the government while paying no taxes. And, just as bad, homeless families have their tents bulldozed to make way for stadiums that billionaires are given tax breaks to build! When will it stop? It won’t stop! That’s why Whites have joined everyone else in the U.S. with premature deaths. This situation is stressful! And while we’re stressed to the max here, US bombs are destroying whole countries in Africa and Asia. And that carnage will not stop, will only expand–to more and more countries. That’s what President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” is all about!’

    Catching-Up with Cynthia McKinney… and Looking (Worriedly) Ahead
    By Gary Corseri on April 23, 2016
    http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/04/23/525467-catching-up-with-cynthia-mckinney-and-looking-worriedly-ahead/

    • glenn_uk

      One serious problem with the Green Party candidate is that – in a system like the two-party, winner-take-all system they have in the US, they do far more damage to the party they are most aligned with, than the party they are diametrically opposed to.

      In this case, the Green Party will take votes away from the Dems, thus boosting the chances of an appalling figure like Trump, who has nothing but contempt for green issues.

      Another problem with the Greens, Libertarians and so on is that they only seem to pop up once every four years to gain themselves publicity, draw support away from the party they are most aligned with, and then disappear until the next election cycle. If they (and particularly their supporters) could be bothered to run a consistent movement, they might actually be worthy of respect and votes. As it is, this is a vanity run, and a fools assuaging of the delicate consciences of idealogical purists.

      No offence intended to Green Party supporters, of course.

      • bevin

        You will have noticed, then, that the system in the UK is also a “two-party, winner-take-all system.”
        As such it can be changed-and quite quickly.
        The real problem in the States is not the two party system but the 50 state system which leaves most of the electoral organisation in the hands of state parties. In some states it is almost impossible for third parties to get on the ballot, which is one reason why, between elections most of their energies are spent on preparing for the next Presidential election.
        Again, in some states the districting is totally corrupt and makes building opposition organisations very difficult, in others the mechanics of voting and the qualifications for doing so, are designed to make life difficult for second, let alone third, party candidates.
        Then there are curiosities such as the advance polling, internet voting, postal voting to make no mention of machines whose workings are proprietary secrets, supervised by agents of corporations which are obviously interested in the results.
        The whole thing is a mess designed to produce the illusion of democracy and representation without taking the trouble to give it any credibility.
        Those who blame the 2000 election fiasco on the Supreme Court ought to consider the fact that at the centre of the scandal in Florida was a rather silly semi-volunteer, highly partisan lady running the county electoral system. And then there was an equally silly Attorney General who was supervising the electoral register and employing a Republican legal firm to purge as many black voters from the register as they could.
        Does any other country allow its elections to be run in this way?

        • michael norton

          If not all Americans are nutters :
          Raqqa it is being said that American “Moderates” will start to reclaim Raqqa from Islamic State, now pardon me from imagining that Raqqa is in Syria.
          The Americans or their fucking moderates have not been invited to assist, same as the fucking Turks have not been invited to assist.
          The American leadership is currently in limbo, so which wanker is authorizing this Moderate action in Syria?

          • Laguerre

            The present attack on Raqqa is being organised by the US. What is doubtful is whether it will succeed. Kurds won’t attack Raqqa. There are few Arabs in the army. It’s a diversion, to get Da’ish’s attention away from Mosul.

        • bevin

          I should add that it is to Trump’s eternal credit that he described this system as being ‘rigged.’ So it is.And everyone knows it, though the beneficiaries of the system pretend that, though corrupt, it is acceptable, not to say wonderful, because it makes them a good living.

        • glenn_uk

          @Bevin: Your astute observations on the lackings of the US/UK two-party, winner-take-all system are absolutely correct, and I have little to add to them.

          But given we are forced to operate in the reality based community, what reasonable choice do you propose, other than to support Clinton.

          Kindly remember that – wishes aside – we have only two choices. Which would you prefer, a bigoted far right reactionary with fascistic tendencies, or a candidate that has had to concede a great deal to the socialist left, and may yet be persuaded further still if she has any intention of winning a second term.

          I did not put a question mark at the end of the last couple of paragraphs, because surely even you realise at this point, the question is entirely rhetorical.

          • Muscleguy

            Just look at what the SNP, now in the position of the third largest party at Westminster faced in the GE: posters with Alex Salmond picking Milliband’s pocket. Note too that Scotland is described as a ‘one party state’ despite being a vibrant multi-party democracy under a PR system. The SNP are even back to being a minority government even as this one is still being levelled at them.

      • Macky

        @Glenn, as you are appear to be one of those apparently anguished & reluctant Clinton supporters who justify their support on the premise of the “Lesser Evil” argument”, how do you respond to my post o the previous page, in which I made the point that choosing to support & encourage real known evil in the here & now, on the dangerous unknowable gamble of possibly preventing another perhaps future greater theoretical evil, is exactly the same morally bankrupt mindset that has seen countries like Iraq & Libya utterly destroyed because of the mirror image “Greater Good” argument ?

        Besides as a non US citizen, especially a European one, surely the main consideration should be which candidate is the most warmongering, because it’s mostly us here in Europe that eventually pay the price & feel the backlash both in terms of terrorism & in the refugee crisis (a subject I know that is of concern to you) ?

        • kief

          You seem well-intentioned so let me apply a light touch. You seem to recognize the threat of both hillary and trump, but I wonder if you have ever made major decisions with the flip of a coin.

          Chance, hope and pure luck seem to be the stellar recommendation of the Donald. Do you think you are lucky?

          • Macky

            Firstly it’s rare to make a decision on the flip of a coin, as normally there are relevant factors available to enable making a rational decision; failing that there is gut-instinct, or intuition if you like, and it’s ringing warning alarm bells for me iro HRC; secondly I would not dare to gamble with other people’s lives, it’s not my right.

            Could you shoot dead a child to potential save two other kids being killed depending on the outcome of a flip of a coin ? Or would you not murder the first child, & instead allow fate/God to decide if the other two lived or died ? For a religious person there can only be one answer, and I believe even for non-religious people, the moral imperative would compel the same choice.

          • kief

            Good philosophical question but I don’t like to delve into such difficult quandaries unless absolutely necessary, as when actually called to do so. I really don’t know what I would do in that situation, but I would like to think I had the strength to make the best decision under the circumstances. I don’t believe there is a God in the sense that he’s interested in human affairs. More like Einstein’s Illimitable Spirit who sets the World in motion, then lets things take their natural course. There is no fallback position unless you have faith in the bearded man on Heaven’s throne. He is often absent without leave.

          • Macky

            @Kief, everybody who supports HRC using the rationale of the Lesser Evil has effectively chosen to murdered that first child as they have opted to commit an evil on the hope that a potential greater evil does not happen; whetever you are religious or not, I don’t believe it is morally the right thing to do, to give yourself the right to put yourself in the position of gambling with other people’s lives.

        • glenn_uk

          Macky: Sorry, I didn’t see your argument on the previous page (just read it).

          With all respect, this appears to be an argument against a candidate which is a complete unknown, compared with the most negative view of a candidate which is a very well known.

          But the “unknown” in your portrayal, is Donald Trump. A fellow given to every known bigotry, and well known for highly dubious business practices.

          The “known” is Hillary Clinton, who – besides being an absolute on-going hate-figure for the far right-wing over the past 30 years or so – is best characterised by her contribution to health-care and education, and respect for women’s rights, before entering politics.

          Not someone already rich and just bent on enriching his or her self, and saw politics as a useful sideline.

          This really is a binary choice, anything except a Clinton vote is a vote for Trump.

          It really is as simple as that.

          • Macky

            @Glenn, thanks for the reply, but I think you either evaded or misunderstood my argument; the unknown is how Trump in office will act, nevermind the electioneering rhetoric (see Obama for that !) as compared to the known track record of HRC acted in the Obama administration.

            You also avoided addressing my point that as a non US citizen, especially a European concerned with the refugee crises & terrorism, the main concern should surely be the foreign policy of the candidates.

          • glenn_uk

            @Macky: Not quite sure why, but my replies to you seem to have disappeared. Maybe you read it before they went.

  • Sharp Ears

    Here’s a timely turn up for Shillary.

    FBI: No evidence of crime in Clinton emails
    The latest review of Hillary Clinton’s emails by the FBI has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, says FBI director James Comey.
    20:38, UK,
    6 November 2016
    Mr Comey told Congress on Sunday that the review did not change the agency’s conclusion from July, when it said that no charges were warranted in the case of Mrs Clinton’s use of a private email server.

    More follows…
    http://news.sky.com/story/fbi-no-evidence-of-crime-in-clinton-emails-10648486

    Did Comey get his orders?

    • lysias

      I think that’s a big mistake for Comey to announce that now. People will conclude that the fix was in, and there won’t be time to convince people that the decision was legit.

      It would have been much better for Hillary if Comey had waited to say this after the election.

      But the Hillary campaign has never shown much tactical smarts.

  • bevin

    “Who was the “dictator” in the Vietnam story – the “dictator” you say the Americans could and should not appease?” Habba asks Lysias.
    Of course Lysias is not suggesting that there was a “dictator” in fact but in the fevered imaginations of the opinion formers of the time in the US. And that was the problem to which Lysias, who will correct me if I am wrong, refers.
    Instead of attempting to make an agreement with the parties involved-ranging from Diem in the South, and Ho in the North and the parties they represented- the US, frightened of being accused of appeasement (which is in the very essence of diplomacy) insisted on imposing its diktats. Diem it had killed and replaced by a more malleable puppet, who in turn was…. Ho they tried to intimidate and bludgeon.
    In the end, rather than appease, they killed as many as they could and then ran away home.

    • Habbabkuk

      Thank you for replying on Lysias’s behalf, Bev.

      If what you say in the first two paras is correct (perhaps Lysias would care to confirm?), then the analogy drawn – with the appeasement of a flesh and blood dictator (Adolph Hitler) – is even more otiose.

  • Hieroglyph

    Yeah, Trump’s going to win. I’ve noted a distinct change in the language in the media. Previously, it was All In for Clinton, but it’s modified, and the support is often more circumspect. And, what’s all this about 24 people – including POTUS, and her own campaign manager – unfollowing her on Twitter? Strange, if true, I initially thought it was a conservative meme. No, Dems were never enthused about Hillary, and her campaign has been atrocious: it must have been the dullest, quietest pre-election weekend in History. Say what you like about Trump, he packs them in. Clinton has to bus them in.

    Either way, I’m much more interested in whether they’ll arrest Clinton and\or senior Clinton Foundation members. In the US, a poor, black man can get 5+ years on a weed bust, after plea-bargain. You’d think a half-way savvy prosecutor could bust the Clinton’s for corruption. I mean, there are so many smoking guns, it’s like Benghazi out there.

    Btw, is anyone else aware of the, truly disturbing, allegations on conservative media? It’s a paranoid place, conservative media, and I generally don’t take seriously. But, it all links to WL – and I do take Wikileaks seriously. So, no idea what to make of it all. If there is any truth to what they are alleging was found on Weiner’s laptop, we have an interesting week ahead.

    • lysias

      It’s looking more and more to me like the 1980 election, when Reagan ended up winning by 10 points. If Minnesota is really in play, that’s the kiss of death for Hillary.

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Hillary OFF the hook as FBI Director James Comey reveals the department will NOT change its July decision after further email investigation’:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3911032/FBI-announces-not-change-decision-regarding-Hillary-Clinton-s-emails.html
    ‘ FBI announced it will not change the decision it reached in July after investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails
    Director James Comey announced the potentially election-changing news in an email on Sunday afternoon
    The latest finding means the Democratic nominee will not be charged with anything from the email scandal
    Hillary’s camp addressed Comey’s letter after it was published, saying it is ‘glad that the matter is resolved’
    Donald Trump was quick to trash the latest decision, saying Clinton is being protected by a ‘rigged system’ …………’
    Yet a poor black man can get five years with plea bargain for a weed bust; that’s ‘Justice USA’ for you…..

    ‘Spirit Cooking Only The Start’:
    http://www.youtube.com

    • kief

      Trump:

      Part 1

      “Comey part of the rigged system”

      Part 2

      ‘He’s not part of the rigged system’

      Part 3

      ‘He’s ba-a-a-a-a-a-ck!’

      I always thought Brits were smart.

  • bevin

    “…This really is a binary choice, anything except a Clinton vote is a vote for Trump.
    “It really is as simple as that…”
    No it is not. In most states the result is known well in advance. This has long been the case: the Solid South for example. So, in those states, it really doesn’t matter who commenters vote for, the ballot is your oyster.
    There are a few states in which a vote for Trump would definitely count- Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are examples of states in which the Democrats’ Trade record and anti-welfare stance make it possible that many of their core votes (Union members for example, or former Union members) will change sides. If that does happen and Trump wins on the votes of angry unemployed and under employed democrats or voters worried about Hillary’s plans for Social Security cuts, how could the ‘left’ hesitate to join them?

    And yet there is no sign that the ‘left’ is making its support conditional, at all, they are all in for Hillary. And they seem unable to question why it is that the corporate media and the wealthy have suddenly got picky about reactionaries.
    The truth is that if the establishment thought that Trump was a Fascist they would be giving him their full support. Their worry is that he isn’t while they can count on Hillary to do exactly what they tell her.
    The truth is that Hillary is committed to war, Wall St, cuts in “entitlements” including Medicare and Social Security, “Free Trade” deals like the TPP TTIP and NAFTA and LGBT rights.
    I sometimes sense that her ‘leftist’ supporters regard war in Syria, Iran and Russia as a reasonable trade off for the right of homosexuals to marry, in just the same way (cakes included) as hetrosexuals and regulation of pronoun use at tertiary educational institutions.
    What is really weird is that as Assange points out, Hillary’s most enthusiastic and generous supporters include the Saudi Royal family.
    Do her supporters think that they are feminists with liberal views on gay rights?
    Do her supporters think?

    • kief

      “I sometimes sense that her ‘leftist’ supporters regard war in Syria, Iran and Russia as a reasonable trade off for the right of homosexuals to marry, in just the same way (cakes included) as hetrosexuals and regulation of pronoun use at tertiary educational institutions.”

      I assume you use the word leftists with disdain and you would be correct in your conclusion if you had said Progressives, the soft hand of good for you tyranny. They do consider LGBT rights as of paramount importance, perhaps even to justifying the international human rights violations to be less important.

      But be clear you aren’t talking about leftists. Very few of them by comparison.

      • Martinned

        And then there are some leftists who took to the streets demanding that something be done about the outrageous human rights violations in Syria. So the (US) government did something, only to get blamed for, euh, what exactly?

        • bevin

          “..And then there are some leftists who took to the streets demanding that something be done about the outrageous human rights violations in Syria. ..”
          Things have come to a pretty pass when you can ignore the fact that the US sponsored al qaeda militias, armed, paid and assisted by the US and its allies (including the Gulf tyrannies) are the source of that “human right violation” described by Nuremburg as an unprovoked war of aggression.
          It bis an indication of your fanatical conformism that you are not only unashamed of this carnage but actually attempt to defend this latest in a list of criminal wars which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and forced millions to seek refuge abroad.
          This is the great tragedy of the current century and you are wholly complicit in it.
          This war against Syria includes, crucially, a propaganda offensive.The wars against Libya and Iraq were conducted in the same way: the military assaults were wrapped in clouds of lies and half truths coordinated to numb the consciences of the populations of the criminal governments.
          By enlisting yourself voluntarily in this campaign, together with wahhabi militias and NATO air forces, you make yourself consciously complicit in something profoundly evil.
          Does that amuse you?

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    So, Comey has at least some sense, announcing just in time that the FBU is no longer investigating Hillary’s e-mails aka an “October Surprise”, realizing helping Trump get elected would be the end of him.

    Might just be enough to see Clinton elected.

  • Hieroglyph

    #DNC2 is increasingly hilarious. Poor old Wolf Bluster will soon have to find himself a new job. More generally, the Clinton Foundation is now a national joke, and you can’t imagine it’ll last much longer I’d gently suggest the IRS get involved, with a nice audit. That’ll screw them all royally.

    Good times. I’m increasingly warming to a Trump presidency. He’s a Republican, his polices are identifiably Republican (mostly), he even hates paying tax – very Republican. In other words, he is vaguely recognizable as someone with whom I disagree about almost everything. The neocons, on the other hand, I have long regarded as utterly batshit, and I rarely have a clue what the fuck they talking about. They just seem to ooze lies and malice, and you need a special ‘neocon crazy translator’ for everything they say.

    And the Dems. Well, they deserve everything they get. Hillary was and is a piss poor candidate, and you’d have hoped the smarter heads would have realized that ‘winning’ (cheating) against Bernie with such a terrible candidate might cause problems in the real race. I realize she may still win the election, and she may even escape indictment, but she is basically a joke now, and she hasn’t even started. And losing to Donald Trump – ha ha ha, that would be hilarious.

  • Sharp Ears

    WikiLeaks has come under DoS attack since publishing a new tranche of DNC e-mails, the whistleblowing website has announced on Twitter.

    The announcement was made by WikiLeaks in an official Twitter account. On November 6, WikiLeaks published more e-mails from the Democratic National Committee, bringing the number to the promised 50,000.

    Among the published e-mails, there are transcripts of Bill Clinton’s fundraising speeches, in which the former US president attacks UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and says a tough leader is needed to “enforce the trigger that will re-impose sanctions” if Iran violates the nuclear deal.

    The leaks also included Clinton aides worrying that “there are no good answers” to questions about the Clinton Foundation.

    One of the issues discussed in the e-mails is raised by former Clinton Foundation fundraiser Doug Band, who slams Chelsea Clinton for allegedly spending money from the Foundation on her wedding.

    READ MORE: Assange: Clinton resisted FBI, and now they’re out for payback (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

    The latest leak also comes two days after Australian journalist and documentary maker John Pilger’s exclusive interview with Julian Assange.

    During the conversation, Assange talked about the leaks, saying that the source of wasn’t the Russian government, as Washington has repeatedly claimed.

    The WikiLeaks co-founder also discussed the outcome of the upcoming elections, saying that the Saudi and Qatari governments support Clinton, as well as ISIS [Islamic State, formerly ISIL], and predicted that “Trump wouldn’t be permitted to win.”

    https://www.rt.com/news/365576-wikileaks-servers-dos-attack/

    • Sharp Ears

      To save you wading through the Wikileaks dump of Shillary comms, the Mail helpfully publish this today about the antics of darling Chelsea.

      ‘Something borrowed! Chelsea Clinton ‘used Foundation resources to fund her 2010 wedding to Marc Mezvinsky’, according to new Wikileaks emails
      A new chain of Wikileaks emails alleges Chelsea Clinton used resources from the Clinton Foundation for her wedding to Marc Mezvinsky
      An email from Doug Band, a former top aide to president Bill Clinton and a former Clinton Global Initiative board member, complains about Chelsea
      Says she was conducting internal investigating of money within the Clinton Foundation and told George W Bush’s daughters this information
      Band says this is conflict of interest because Chelsea allegedly used resources for her wedding
      It is estimated the cost of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding was about $3 million, but it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used
      Other emails from Band show him slamming Mezvinsky and saying Chelsea Clinton ‘goes to daddy’ to get her way on plans
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3910746/Chelsea-Clinton-used-Foundation-money-fund-wedding-according-new-Wikileaks-emails.html

      • Martinned

        it is unclear what Foundation resources might have been used

        Sounds about as reliable as Comey’s “it is unclear whether these Wiener emails will contain anything of interest”…

      • Habbabkuk

        Of what relevance are Chelsea Clinton and her wedding to the suitability or otherwise of Hillary Clinton to be US President?

        I wonder if I am the only reader to be increasingly irritated and certainly disgusted by the tendency of a certain “commenter” to drag family members into her criticism of politicians and other public personalities. It is a very Stalinist sort of behaviour (which even the Nazis eschewed, it seems). But by all accounts Stalin didn’t have much time for the family either, did he.

      • Habbabkuk

        And now it’s the turn of the husband of the daughter of the Presidential candidate.

        Daily Star or News of the World sort of stuff.

      • Habbabkuk

        It’s a good job Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton isn’t a grandmother yet or we’d be reading weighty stuff from at least one “commenter” on the young child/children.

        While waiting, how about something on the parents of the husband of the daughter of the Presidential candidate? 🙂

        • Sharp Ears

          Somebody please tell him to keep up. Shillary is always going on about being ‘a mother and grandmother’. Shame she’s a war criminal too.

          Shillary’s grandchildren

          Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky
          Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Why don’t all you misogynists who were scapegoating Hillary for what all those sick investigators and politicians, starting with her husband Bill, did for sex, and blamed her for what they were doing during Iran-Contra just give us a break, and disappear for a while!

    • bevin

      “..Afterwards, in the calm of his office, (Bishop) Wooden tells The Irish Times why he thinks African-Americans have been shortchanged by Obama, why they are not supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton this time around in anything like the numbers and why he is voting for Trump.
      “We have a serious case of buyers’ remorse. The facts bear out that we are not better eight years later,” he says, referring to housing, arrests, employment and education. The LGBT community and Hispanic Americans have been treated better by Obama than African-Americans, he claims.
      “We have seen a man who, by and large, has turned his back on his most faithful constituency,” he says.
      “Early voting in North Carolina that ended on Saturday showed that black voters are turned off in this election; their numbers are down 8 per cent on 2012. Troubled that African-American voters who turned out in record numbers for him are not as keen on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama last week campaigned three times on two separate days in the state that narrowly voted for him in 2008 and rejected him four years later…”

      Are you suggesting that any criticism of Hillary is misogyny?

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        Black disappointment with Obama has little to do with the scapegoating of Hillary.

        The FBI’s ranks have been furious about Hillary ever since Whitewater broke. They were kept from investigating Bill Clinton because of CIA willingness to protect him because of what he had done for Iran-Contra out of Mena’s International Airport.

        For more about this, readJames B. Stewart’s Blood Sport:The President and His Adversaries.

        Since then, the anger at Hillary has just piled up because of the betrayals of Petraeus, Bill’s increasing guilt, and the increasing war between the Bureau and the Agency over the 9/11 cockups.

        That’s the war everyone should be talking about, not the FBI’s with the DoJ.

        Still think your disappearing for a while would be a relief.

          • Trowbridge H. Ford

            Paula Broadwell was a Mossad spy who not only was a ‘honey trap’ for Betrayus, but she also acted for him on many occasions, like when she attended that spooks conference in Colorado Springs in his stead.

          • giyane

            So Petraeus was the victim. Thought so. All that petrol he poured on Iraq by organising internecine attacks between Shi’a and Sunni was nothing. All that cackling at the destruction of Africa’s richest nation by little victim Hillary Clinton was nothing.

            Well, these little Hill-Billy shoot that injun looking at my land neo-cons gonna get run outa town and left out to dry on the barbed-wire fence with the moles and the crows. Old Timer.

  • michael norton

    ‘You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days!’ Furious Trump blasts FBI Director after Houdini Hillary is CLEARED over second email investigation sparked by Anthony Weiner’s teen sexting scandal

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3911032/FBI-announces-not-change-decision-regarding-Hillary-Clinton-s-emails.html#ixzz4PKb6ynYm

    It does seem strange that the FBI call out Killary, just before an election, then minutes before voting day, claim no problem.
    There is a problem, just that they are scared to be too specific, in case Killary wins.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      Of course one can by looking for things like Hillary, Weiner, Cathy O’Brien, wild sex parties, islands in the Caribbean, etc.

      And Comey changed his mind because he didn’t want to be blamed for Trump being POTUS.

      And your disappearance would be a great relief for all.

      • michael norton

        If Killary wins she might have FBI chief James Comey

        specially rendered to Glasgow Prestwick

    • glenn_uk

      ‘You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days!’

      That’s funny, because a bunch of posters here had decided they knew all about it in less than eight hours.

      So… isn’t Hillary supposed to be dying of Parkinsons, and/or various other serious maladies which will make her dead inside a year?

      Where’s that “smoking gun” gone, which proved she was criminally guilty of… something?

      It’s most disappointing to have all this tease, yet never any actual action from you guys.

      • kief

        “You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days!’

        All they can do is repeat Trump quotes. Their stinking thinking smells of ripe Haggis or recycled bangers and mash. But that’s their story and they’re sticking to Trump, god bless them.

      • John

        The “smoking gun” is storing classified data on private servers.

        A prima facie offence.

        Maybe in a couple of days you’ll be pretending nobody has told you this before …

          • John

            A reprimand is not a trial.

            And gross negligence with classified material certainly is a criminal offence.

          • glenn_uk

            Of course a reprimand is not a trial, nobody said it was. I’m not at all sure this mishandling was a criminal offence – if so, that’s up to the Justice Department. Write and tell them – maybe they don’t know the law as well as you do.

            Looks like you’re still coming up well short in finding that “smoking gun”, John. Bad luck mate.

        • glenn_uk

          Sorry Macky, missed that – heck of a lot going on these days.

          However Trump acts, it’s surely not likely to be good. Trump is a toxic narcissist, and has already offended more than half the world with his racism, taunts and outright lies.

          You will note that Clinton did not start any wars herself, she was working for the Obama administration not running it. No nukes were fired on her orders, for instance. Trump on the other hand has expressed an interest in using them.

          To me, this election result is like having discovered a tumour, and the question for tomorrow night is whether it turns out to be benign or malignant. Neither is exactly great, but the former is vastly preferable.

          • Macky

            @Glenn, your response avoids the fact that HRC was the driving force behind the attack on Libya, dragging a reluctance Obama into acting; you also avoid the fact that it is HRC who is up for militarily confronting Russia not Trump.

            You have also yet again avoided addressing my point that as a non US citizen, especially a European concerned with the refugee crises & terrorism, the main concern should surely be the foreign policy of the candidates.

          • glenn_uk

            @Macky: What do you want me to say? I’ve already told you, I’m not a fan of Clinton.

            Trump, however, strikes me as a particularly dangerous lunatic. That’s why the K-K-Klan are out ‘phone-banking for him, and the American Nazi party is organising a get-out-the-vote effort on Trump’s behalf.

            The white nationalists are giddy at the prospect of this moron getting into office – seriously, and you’re campaigning for him here?

          • Macky

            @Glenn, instead of worrying Trump’s red neck white trash base, who are mostly powerless, but are still US citizens with a right to vote, should you not be more concerned or at least suspicious about all the powerful names & big business & MSM lining up behind HRC ? Hell that even includes the Bushes !! Doesn’t that ring any alarm bells ?!

            Anyhow I’m still interested how you reconcile supporting the more warmongering candidate, when you have often express concern about the refugee crisis, which as you know is a direct result of US instigated wars.

          • michael norton

            Trump is Scottish through and through, he’s a good person and will do right for the World

          • glenn_uk

            @Macky: My answer is the same – Trump is particularly dangerous, and while the lessor of two evils is still evil (although a lessor one), wanting the lessor of two evils does not mean one thinks it’s suddenly all grandy and dandy. That’s not what I’m saying, surely that should be obvious by now.

            Clinton is a flawed candidate, for sure. By rights, Trump’s opponent should be 50 points up in the polls – only La Clinton could manage to make this a tight race.

            Nonetheless, Trump is an out of control lunatic who is likely to start wars just because he’s been personally affronted by someone. Not good… even if Putin likes him.

          • Macky

            @Glenn, I think it’s best if we leave it here; given all we know at this stage, others can judge how rational & convincing are your reasons for supporting HRC over Trump.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Glenn
            “You will note that Clinton did not start any wars herself”

            Jeez bud, look where your lesser evilism has taken you. Off the rocker, spouting crap that I doubt you really believe in.

            Clinton was in charge of the war department at the time. She admits being the enthusiast for it. She laughed about it. Your claim she bears no responsibility is laughable.

            Hilary is a corrupt, elitist, warmonger. You are supporting her because she hasn’t fired a nuke? Because she hasn’t been convicted? Because you fear her opponent more? That’s all it takes to get your support?

            Sure, there is only a choice of two monsters in this election. But this will always remain the case whilst people contort themselves with lesser evilism. Fuck thm both. Voting for either is supporting the war machine.

          • kief

            You’re losing your mojo, phil. Is this an endorsement of Trump? That’s hard to shed, isn’t it?

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Keif

            I have no idea how what I wrote can be read as an endorsement of Trump. I called them both monsters. I said a vote for either is a vote for the war machine.

            I am saying that people who feel they have to support one or other of these shits perpetuate a system of oppression and murder.

          • kief

            Yes I read ‘a pox on all your houses’ but what is the final result of that condemnation?

            Would it be better or worse, depending on the choice?

            I previously rejected any participation in the result, then realized Munich was a real possibility, so I traded my vote for seven pieces of silver so that my heirs don’t inherit the Wind I created. it’s about others, after all.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            Kief

            Well the result of refusing to support either is that one of them will become president and whoever that is will front murder and oppression. You may feel you have a crystal ball that sees more death and oppression via Trump. Hillary will kill less you claim. Slightly less death. Slightly friendlier oppression.

            Can you really not imagine a better course of action?

          • kief

            “You may feel you have a crystal ball that sees more death and oppression via Trump’

            i’m neither scrying nor crystal-balling. History tells me the devil you know is more calculable than an averagely-smart, narcissistic and largely ignorant financier with a loose tongue without any reasonable restraint might behave as POTUS versus hillary, the known quantity/quality.

            BTW you seem rather cavalier in attitude wrt matters across the pond. Maybe you should stfu about matters that are so remote.

          • Phil the ex-frog

            kief
            “you should stfu”

            LOL. Sorry, I didn’t realise you were incapable of arguing your case. But I am surprised you haven’t noticed this is a forum for discussion.

            Anyway, you prefer x who will kill i people over y who will kill j. Even if you did have the information to make that calculation (which you don’t) you have accepted the limitation of our possibilities to be defined by a system that guarantees more war and oppression. You lose before a vote is counted. We all lose.

            Go Hillary! My preferred killer!

  • giyane

    End the conflict in Syria? The outcome of the war has already been decided. A small group of Western politicians and half a million Muslim nutcases have already pissed off the whole of Islam enough that political Islam can never win this war. But it never won in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya either. The objective of the conflict in the creed of Osama bin Laden was for the terrorists to scare the Muslims into their ways and beliefs through terror, and that coincided with the Zionists who want the maximum pain and discomfort for Muslims.

    The objective of neither of the allies, West or Al Qaida, was to win. Nor is the objective to stop the punishment of Muslims. If they learn how to pray according to the demands of their oppressors, they can still be forced to clean their teeth the right way, wash up the right way and have sex the right way. There is no end to the agenda of fascist political correction.

    I am glad we are leaving a Europe that pays Erdogan to imprison refugees. In fact it’s much cheaper for him to pay the smugglers to drown them. he doesn’t have to feed them, or pay his brutal prison staff to rape them and keep their mouths shtum. Europe can pretend that it is paying for merciful care, while it is in fact paying for genocide.

    With aims like these the conflict will be drawn out by the key players for as long as possible. With massive oil revenues pouring in from oil stolen from Kurdistan , Syria and Iraq, why would the toss pots in London Town or the MP for Stratford want to close the war down?
    Nadhim Zahawi. MP 3 Trinity Street, Stratford Upon Avon CV37 6BL
    Born in Baghdad Director of Genel Oil ( free oil from Daesh Iraq, Syria and Kurdistan ) see also T.Blair war criminal and advisor to David Cameron.

  • kief

    “No, you don’t because you’re all a bunch of brainwashed morons that think they’re too smart/savvy to be affected by the most effective battery of propagandistic weapons the world has ever seen”

    It’s the Looking glass effect. Trump has average intelligence so fooling morons is not difficult.

  • Ron Showalter

    Further: and you will see this in the posts of the comatose here and all over the web. It goes something like this formula:

    Legitimate point about an issue
    Legitimate point about an issue
    Legitimate point about an issue

    and then this statement or something along these lines:

    Therefore I have to engage my mind/body/spirit in the nonsense election Spectacle that has been crafted to turn me into a blithering idiot because – insert asinine/farcical outcome here (e.g., nuclear holocaust is a timely one)!!!

    See, kiddies where the break happens? See how your concern over legitimate issues is deflected into worrying about nonsensical stupid sh!te that OMFG REALLY MATTERS!1!!! cuz the MSM told you it does?

    The Green Bay Packers could play the Patriots for the Presidency – I’m sure they will in 75 years – for as much as it matters but don’t tell that to the super-sleuths who are trying to shake things up going after evil evil Hillary!

    Wait a second, super-sleuthers, I thought after your Bernie butthurt you were going to vote for Trump to blow up the entire system but it sure seems now that you are ACTUALLY SUPPORTING him what with all of your talk about how he’s such a pacifist, pretty good on trade etc.

    Gee, funny how that subtle change took place in your mnds, huh? How your anger/butthurt at the system was deflected into actually supporting the system once again by making you support/defend one of its fake candidates and a human piece of garbage at that, huh?

    And then the Einstein chorus wails about how they were tricked once again into giving their “CONSENT AS GOVERNED, hey?

    Idiots.

  • kief

    I love progressives. They love people they don’t know. Hate people they know. See their concern for others? The only thing stronger is their self-loathing whiteness but even that overrides their concern for brown refugees.

  • michael norton

    O/T but important

    Georgian Saakashvili quits as Ukraine Odessa governor
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37895588

    Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president, has resigned as governor of Ukraine’s Odessa region, expressing fury at rampant corruption.

    He accused Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of backing corrupt officials who, he said, were undermining his reform efforts in Odessa.

    I just can’t believe that Ukraine is corrupt.

    • michael norton

      If/when Killary gets into power, I expect she will wind up the situation in Ukraine,
      probably pay for some training for their military/prison guards/judiciary/secret police
      that sort of thing.

  • Habbabkuk

    I am struck by the lack of comment here on the recent High Court ruling in the Brexit /Article 50 case.

    Have the RepublicofSkotlands and the Michel Nortons (to take just two Vociferous Ones from opposing sides of the argument) been struck dumb?

    Are they waiting for a lead from someone?

    • Habbabkuk

      Perhaps Michael (BREXIT IS BREXIT!!!!) Norton is too absorbed with the tricky question of Ukraine and is RepublikofSkotland perhaps enjoying a well deserved week off romping among the heather and gorse (careful to keep your troons on, they prick!)?

  • Sharp Ears

    At present I am watching Craig live on RT and speaking from Edinburgh about the DOS attack on Wikileaks.

  • Republicofscotland

    So the deputy leader of the Labour party, Tom Watson said on Pienaar’s politics radio show, that Labour would not hold up the triggering of article 50.

    The British people have spoken said Watson, and Labour will support, Theresa May’s article 50. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, in a newspaper article suggested, Labour would kill the bill if workers rights, and access to the single market were not guaranteed, however a unnamed Labour source, went on to claim, that Labour would support article 50, unconditionally, and they (Labour) would only seek to amend or influence.

    Of course, Theresa May must first convince the Supreme court, to overturn a prior ruling. I wonder what dirt, the security services, possess on the Supreme court judges? enough to sway their opinion? perhaps, perhaps not.

    • michael norton

      Well well well RoS

      I think I know what might be going on.
      It has been reported that Owen Clark thinks Labour will be wiped out if there is a General Election.
      So the slime balls are winding their necks in.

      • Laguerre

        The only reason that Labour might be wiped out is that the right wing refuse to support their elected leader. Nothing to do with Corbyn himself.

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.