Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 20, 2016

This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People

Via Adam Johnson:

"Total mentions all 4 debates:

  • Russia/Putin 178
  • ISIS/terror 132
  • Iran 67
  • ...
  • Abortion 17
  • Poverty 10
  • Climate change 4
  • Campaign finance 3
  • Privacy 0"

The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like.  Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink

Comments
next page »

I didn't watch too.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1

I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.

Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2

"But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"

It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.

I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 9:28:26 AM | 3

#2

Yes we will.

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 9:29:17 AM | 4

Better than the previous fiascos. Clinton is the consummate politician. Trump was holding back....maybe he thinks that will win a few votes but he missed some opportunities to corner her.

Posted by: dh | Oct 20, 2016 9:32:07 AM | 5

Actually, I would say Trump did attack Clinton. As usual, though, his details were wrong or missing.

Posted by: Edward | Oct 20, 2016 9:52:36 AM | 6

Slickest damned marketing campaign ever. Instead of any candidate espousing real change the Apex Elite offerings are these two minions of their system. I give them credit for whipping up the public while dodging any discussion of where these elites want to lead the nation and her people. 'Anthro global warming' as a hoax works to these ends and the various corporate rights agreements, with more in the pipeline, being very real, works to these ends. The levels of fraud and corruption that dominate western civilization notwithstanding, the real target for political ideological attitude change are those democracy loving western populations that must be brought to heel if the "New Universal Agenda" is to go forward and succeed.This election is about 'electing' another of their controllable puppets and giving them the fig leaf of legitimacy to carry out their agenda. They have evidently succeeded in generating interest in their election process among those that still believe that voting can mean anything other than the real disenfranchisement from any decision making for the population that truly exists.

Posted by: BRF | Oct 20, 2016 10:08:11 AM | 7

Clinton knows how to provoke him. He reacts too quickly. They both seem to think they own the Middle East.

Posted by: dh | Oct 20, 2016 10:09:26 AM | 8

...
Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.
Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2

Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy, and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because it IS their fault.
We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government" governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not to notice. But the writing is on the wall...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20, 2016 10:14:49 AM | 9

The race was lost in the first debate. Trump clearly didn't prepare for it and ended up repeating himself after the first fifteen minutes. He had the attention of 100 million voters and a thousand possible attack angles against Hillary and The Establishment but he blew it.

Posted by: fort sensible | Oct 20, 2016 10:17:20 AM | 10

I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.

Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon - there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA ...

It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ... and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that it'll make them feel better.

Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!

Posted by: rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 11

b:

- I'm quite sure Global Warming is not high on rural voters radar (unless you said that in snark ???)

The first to blame are the moderators of such debates,(...) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.

Wallace kept interruptions to a minimum (compared to 1st 2 debates). He asked both of them uncomfortable questions, evenhanded IMO. He asked a lot of questions important to most voters, just neither of them had any insightful responses: "My tax plan is better then your tax plan". little in the way of vision from either of them.

Syria: Trump is emphatic... "Putin out maneuvered U.S.'. Great. What are you going to do Donald? What about US arming AQ based rebels for so long? Saudi sponsoring/funding there and in Yemen? Not much. He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book (realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about it). Trump backed off... completely.

Hillary... a little tough talk on Putin & not much else. Vapid. "Yes, I voted for Iraq. But...".

2 thumbs down for both on Syria/ME (can I give 3?)

I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it.

What I read reflected my view: Trump was best he's been through 1st 30 minutes or so... stuck to topic of questions & surprised me a bit with 1/2 way cogent answers. Best I've heard from him entire campaign. Most of "reviews" I read thought the same.

Then he went off the farm answering about 12 (?) new groping & looked like an idiot. Really dumb to say they had "been discredited", he looked like ao liar.

HRC was on point on this one, she has worked for women' issues so good for her. But... AFAIC we're considering prez qualifications here, not audition to a Gloria Steinem fan club.

Nothing but rehashed gossip. Pathetic.

SCOTUS: Trump thinks Scalia was "brilliant", wants to get Roe/Wade overturned. I guess he's had an epiphany. He'll grab your pu**y and f**k her (if a perfect 10) in back seat of his limo, but deny it and outlaw abortion. Haa haa! Let's call it a Constitutional Principle. Congrats Donald, you're starting to look like a real conservative!!!

b, you blame media/moderators... I dun'o. To me, this is America now. Angry and confused poplulation... been lied to about so much for so long people don't know whether to wind-their-ass or scratch-their-watch. The "candidates" (all of 'em) are in a well rehearsed feed back loop informed by same advisors with same opinions they were all given decades ago, trying to "teach" their own how to look presidential. An act. It's not even lesser of 2 evils AFAIC, it's beyond that.

Almost like looking for Enlightenment in sewage pipes. No soul or inspiration from either or their parties. Media only purposed with making money while celebrating their "success" while everything's falling apart around them. Almost like Wall Street.

Almost... dead. :(

...

I will vote for Jill, no longer think she could have done anything in these debate forums though. Still think she's by far, got best ideas.

...

I could get behind a million (ten?) man march in DC demanding canceling election, starting over, creating completely new process to get on ballot. Just throw everything we do now out, go through some chaos... be diligent and persistent until something worthwhile starts to show up. Hope people can rise above petty qualification metrics (like 2nd amendment, or SCOTUS "Constitutional interpretations" little more then masked fixing to get what some group wants). Our problems have gotten beyond our grasp, are mostly obscured in not just debate, but I think now in consciousness... rudderless.

Very very serious situation.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 12

"In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost."

Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping' forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.

Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017.
QEn+ already cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'.
US national 'debt' (sic) will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.

Posted by: chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 10:41:32 AM | 13

Suggestion: never report on a debate you didn't watch. Trump came out very strongly against abortion.

Posted by: Diana | Oct 20, 2016 10:42:18 AM | 14

Well,I didn't watch all of it,but every moment I did,he kicked her drugged up bubbleheaded phony ass,as she nodded along like a porcelain bobblehead,lying with every breath,and Trump looked and acted (purposely I'm sure)very presidential.
Of course every MSM claims differently,and the meme generated from all at the close was he rejects the democratic process,while they fix the election for zions whore,HRC.sheesh.
Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 15

as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good thing

Posted by: Danny801 | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 16

And the Russian stuff,Trump had to be somewhat combative vs Russia,as the meme is Russia is helping him.So simple to read.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:48:48 AM | 17

@15, Danny801

Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia

Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons), but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Oct 20, 2016 10:55:06 AM | 18

For the Eric Zeuss haters amongst the commentariat - give him hell: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

For the open minded, This is an article worth mulling: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

Posted by: rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 11:12:29 AM | 19

B, you're right, especially with your last assertion - it never was.

Posted by: Pnyx | Oct 20, 2016 11:14:22 AM | 20

The debates would be more relevant if third-party candidates were included.

That is very unlikely to happen unless we change voting method.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Don't miss: Rigged.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20, 2016 11:15:56 AM | 21

Agree entirely that the "presidential debates" are hardly that at all with questions about whether Trump "believes" something Hillary said, dominating.

I could care less about whether one candidate "believes" another. I want to hear a problem and the candidate's proposed solution, not some visceral playground emotions.

Posted by: Bardi | Oct 20, 2016 11:20:38 AM | 22

Neither candidate is even remotely qualified to be the executive. Declare "None of The Above" and stay home and don't vote on November 8th.

Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 11:43:56 AM | 23

I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with more precision, not just his usual rambling.

jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11
He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book (realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about it). Trump backed off...
YES, major point.

Here is a good take
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/trumps-lonely-moment-of-truth/

Posted by: Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 11:50:24 AM | 24

Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.

This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving as Commander in Chief.

Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation, the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients' Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go. Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced she's in her right mind.

So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?

What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?

What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their allies?

What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough psychological warfare?

What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military force? You know, the world's police force.

What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is where it all begins?

What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World' leaders.

Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this monster. I don't. Do you?

This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government wet dream.

Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War

Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR

Your vote is either for War or against War.

It's that simple...

Posted by: h | Oct 20, 2016 11:56:00 AM | 25

I kind of like Zuesse, I just think he's a truly awful writer.

Posted by: RudyM | Oct 20, 2016 12:07:38 PM | 26

Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.
Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14

I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where 'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.

The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Oct 20, 2016 12:18:04 PM | 27

Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination '60s.

Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely.

May you be born(e) into interesting times.

AG

Posted by: ArthurGilroy | Oct 20, 2016 12:34:11 PM | 28

@27 I completely agree, Arthur.

The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017, plenty of time for a new election.

Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!

Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 12:43:53 PM | 29

24

That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS' together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.

Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA. There's zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class. Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.

This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.

Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.

Posted by: chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 12:44:41 PM | 30

Clinton is a midwesterner through and through. She loves east coast cockledoodle dandy thats for sure.

Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Oct 20, 2016 12:48:15 PM | 31

Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates, it is rather hopeless to explain.

Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who is not a bimbo?

The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with crappy software.

But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.

Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton. Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point the scope of name-dropping is narrow.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 12:58:10 PM | 32

Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!


Posted by: Nur Adlina | Oct 20, 2016 1:00:32 PM | 33

Did anybody see Gary Johnson on Jimmy Kimmel? Kimmel kind of semi-mocked him, which was deserved.
Can't see any point in voting for Johnson.

It's funny how the MSM latched on to Trump's comment about conceding potential defeat. Somebody must've wired a memo to go all-in on that tidbit as the theme for the debate.

Posted by: bbbb | Oct 20, 2016 1:03:48 PM | 34

Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn.

Posted by: Blue | Oct 20, 2016 1:11:34 PM | 35

What Trump should say?:

He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.


Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail???

Posted by: mike k | Oct 20, 2016 1:15:02 PM | 36

As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.

Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Rigged from the get go is definitely true.

What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed.

Posted by: Michael | Oct 20, 2016 1:16:58 PM | 37


h, 24

"Your vote is either for War or against War.

It's that simple."

Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.

Posted by: EnglishOutsider | Oct 20, 2016 1:41:59 PM | 38

29

My position is not ludicrous!

Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten me.

The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton. Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.

A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war

Posted by: h | Oct 20, 2016 1:49:33 PM | 39

I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.

I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration, which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.

But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump 2016.

Posted by: TG | Oct 20, 2016 2:00:36 PM | 40

debate is over!
Back to the real world.
Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
OCT 20
Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.

The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).

They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1476976485

Posted by: schlub | Oct 20, 2016 2:07:30 PM | 41

I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem. Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running them.

Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)

Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.

Posted by: Erelis | Oct 20, 2016 2:08:01 PM | 42

h, 29

Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?

TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.

Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.

Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm#Political_Hotspots

Posted by: Mike | Oct 20, 2016 2:11:46 PM | 43

Michael says:

As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed

bingo!

boycott, divest(disinvest), sanction(ratify)

Posted by: john | Oct 20, 2016 2:25:23 PM | 44

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for any competent/ principled politician opposing her. Oops, guess that counts out Sanders and Trump.
Hillary is so vulnerabld to attack due to her pure evil, it remarkable there is no serious contenders - Except mabye Jill stein.

What happened to Trump being a genius b ?

how much Posada emails did Trump use in the debate ? What a moron.
And saying he will jail Hillary ? Make sure you don't' lose moron, because otherwise you'll be the one going to jail.

Posted by: tom | Oct 20, 2016 2:28:14 PM | 45

42

Thanks for the resource, Mike.

I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.'

39

Awesome comment!

Posted by: h | Oct 20, 2016 2:44:42 PM | 46

Here is an excellent overview on the White Helmets:
http://theduran.com/the-continuing-story-of-the-white-helmets-hoax

.... while Mr Raed Saleh has a truely humanistic piece in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/we-have-tried-every-kind-of-death-possible.html
(comments disallowed, I wonder why)

btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13 when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.

Posted by: Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 3:01:33 PM | 47

Wizzy @ 2: Ditto!

Not only a disservice b, but, by design, a distraction. All hail the empire's newest pawn, HRC.

Posted by: ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 48

Chronicles of a dying country...move on, nothing to see here.

Posted by: telescope | Oct 20, 2016 3:17:08 PM | 49

Qoppa @46.

Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going?

Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013. It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20. So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for them to take an effective role in the PR business.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/qa-syria-white-helmets-150819142324132.html

Posted by: Yonatan | Oct 20, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 50

b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.'

No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an engaged demos. That's just the way it is. No to Clinton, no to Trump. No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 20, 2016 3:24:25 PM | 51

P.S.---As Wizzy alluded to, Trump, for whatever reason, is the only candidate almost guaranteed to funnel votes to HRC, the empire's choice.

Posted by: ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:26:18 PM | 52

It just a Dreams. Please dun READ!

There may be a ray of hope. What if Hillary incapacitated the day after her inauguration, Bill Clinton will be the de facto president. What if she died the day after her inauguration Tim Kaine will be the next president.

It's not "IF" but most likely either scenario will happen sooner than later. That old arrogant bitch won't last more than a couple of years. Hopefully, she embarked into a full-blown war in Syria, started a new front with China, dragging New Zealand, Australia, Japan, South Korea and most of the Southeast Asia Nations - another coalition of willing or a coalition of the suicide to WW3. Not to forget we are directly or indirectly fighting 8 wars around the world now.

By than the Americans’ dreams turn into the Americans’ nightmare - That's when we must hit the streets, hopefully the cops and National guards are on our sides.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 3:52:27 PM | 53

downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there.

as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.

even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election! that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"

at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham. small consolation.

Posted by: the pair | Oct 20, 2016 3:59:45 PM | 54

The debates resemble TV wrestling, scripted and phony as hell.

Posted by: euclidcreek | Oct 20, 2016 4:49:47 PM | 55

For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.

Here is the link to the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3hJjWTLRB0

Posted by: Lochearn | Oct 20, 2016 5:29:04 PM | 58

@ Yonatan | Oct 20, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 49

Thanks!

Le Mesurier: It started with the regime bombardment of areas that were being described as liberated so by the end of 2012, areas in northern and southern Syria the regime had pulled out of areas and that gave the regime the space [...] to start bombing civilian communities.

So it was rather an independent enterprise for establishing a "civilian" ground force in "liberated" areas.


Their view is rather like a doctor and the Hippocratic Oath; their job is to save people's lives not to judge them.
Judging from the discrediting material not every one of them seems to have heard of this ... :)


Posted by: Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 5:35:13 PM | 59

CNN Anchor Warns: ‘Illegal’ For You To Look At WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks on Sunday called attention to remarks made by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in which he appeared to warn viewers that it was “illegal” for those outside of the media to look at emails from Hillary Clinton‘s campaign chairman.

“Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us,” Cuomo told viewers.

As much as I would like to see Cumo strung up on a lamppost somewhere, I have to reluctantly agree with him on the bolded comment. My sample universe is friends, neighbors and relatives in America (none of whom I discuss politics with in the least). Yet another reason to discard the notion of ever voting in U.S. elections - it's like standing on the coastline with your arms outstretched trying to stop the tide of ignorance.

Next lifetime, I'm coming back as a surfer.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 20, 2016 5:36:40 PM | 60

Is it better for Trump to lose in 2016?

If a market crash, recession, and military escapades are "baked in" then maybe he has a better chance as a "reformer" in 2020 when Americans are actually living the disaster of Hill-Bama instead of being warned of it.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20, 2016 6:14:31 PM | 61

Good, substantive interview with Jill Stein. Includes insightful discussion on ME, Syria & relations with Putin/Russia. Especially for those not familiar with her may find this interesting. Conducted yesterday (10/19).

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 6:41:56 PM | 62

#59

It will take a lot of luck for the Northern Hemisphere to remain habitable through 2020 if they rig the voting machine backend enough for HRC to win

Posted by: Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 6:48:00 PM | 63

255 These Rothschilds are a strange bunch. They want to get Hillary elected. They have billions in the bank, houses everywhere, grandchildren and they want to poke the bear?

Posted by: dh | Oct 20, 2016 6:57:19 PM | 64

I am contacting you for an interview regarding your latest essay. "THE US-TURKEY “ESCAPE CORRIDOR” OUT OF MOSUL: ISIS-DAESH TERRORISTS “TRANSFERRED” FROM IRAQ INTO SYRIA TO FIGHT SYRIAN, RUSSIAN AND IRANIAN FORCES"


I tried to email this request with the specifics of my organization, time of interview, etc., but the email I used bounced. 'BernhardatMoonofA@aol.com' did not work. Do you have a better email. Or just please reply to mine. Thanks.

I hope you will be able to share the important points you raise in your essay.
Your participation will be greatly appreciated!

Please reply ASAP as I am on deadline. Looking forward to your interview.

Best regards,

Priya Reddy

Posted by: Interview inquiry | Oct 20, 2016 7:19:50 PM | 65

@56 Really? That was a great speech IMHO, although I didn't watch the whole thing

Posted by: bbbb | Oct 20, 2016 7:27:13 PM | 66

in re 38 --

Nah, it's ludicrous. 'Cuz this is like the gazillionth time I posted this. And will sadly have to do it a few more times in the next three weeks. The Donald Trump dove myth dies hard.

In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America should steal other countries’ oil....

“In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country,” Trump said. “We go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council.” He has repeated this idea for years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, “I’ve said it a thousand times.”

....To be clear: Trump’s plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.

Trump wants to wage war in the name of explicitly ransacking poorer countries for their natural resources — something that’s far more militarily aggressive than anything Clinton has suggested.

This doesn’t really track as “hawkishness” for most people, mostly because it’s so outlandish. A policy of naked colonialism has been completely unacceptable in American public discourse for decades, so it seems hard to take Trump’s proposals as seriously as, say, Clinton’s support for intervening more forcefully in Syria....

He also wants to bring back torture that’s “much tougher” than waterboarding. “Don’t kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn’t work,” he said at a November campaign event. But “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing.”

....The problem is that Trump’s instincts are not actually that dovish. Trump... has a consistent pattern of saying things that sound skeptical of war, while actually endorsing fairly aggressive policies.

....In a March 2011 vlog post uncovered by BuzzFeed‘s Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie, Trump full-throatedly endorsed intervening in the country’s civil war — albeit on humanitarian grounds, not for its oil.

“Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around,” Trump said. “We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives.” In a later interview, he went further, endorsing outright regime change: “if you don’t get rid of Gaddafi, it’s a major, major black eye for this country.”

Shortly after the US intervention in Libya began in March 2011, Trump criticized the Obama administration’s approach — for not being aggressive enough. Trump warned that the US was too concerned with supporting the rebels and not trying hard enough to — you guessed it — take the oil.

“I would take the oil — and stop this baby stuff,” Trump declared. “I’m only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don’t take the oil, I’m not interested.”

Throw in a needy, fragile ego -- the braggadocio is overcompensation -- and a hairtrigger temper, and the invasion scenarios write themselves.

And by the way, he's apparently not really that good a businessman either. Riches-to-Riches Trump Spins Fake Horatio Alger Tale. If he'd put his money into S&P 500 index fund, he'd be worth about eight times what he likely is now. Which is very likely substantially less than what he says he is. Good reason to withhold the tax returns, no?

So I guess his only recommendation is a reality show with the tagline "You're fired!" All surface, no depth, the ultimate post-modernist candidate. No fixed mean to that text, alright, he both invites you to write your interpretation but polices "the other" outside of it.

Interesting that the first post-modern candidate is a bloodthirsty fascist (given his refusal to accept the electoral results, I would now consider this not wholly inappropriate).

But then again, someone as innocent as Chauncey Gardiner was unlikely to emerge from the media.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 20, 2016 7:43:23 PM | 67


Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
« Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main
October 20, 2016
This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People

Via Adam Johnson:

"Total mentions all 4 debates:

Russia/Putin 178
ISIS/terror 132
Iran 67
...
Abortion 17
Poverty 10
Climate change 4
Campaign finance 3
Privacy 0"
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course. The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight for the attention of these media and adopt to them.

I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.

Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.

As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality. Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past. Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever reason.

The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.

Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink

Comments
I didn't watch too.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1

I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.

Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2

"But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"

It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.

I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 9:28:26 AM | 3

#2

Yes we will.

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 9:29:17 AM | 4

Better than the previous fiascos. Clinton is the consummate politician. Trump was holding back....maybe he thinks that will win a few votes but he missed some opportunities to corner her.

Posted by: dh | Oct 20, 2016 9:32:07 AM | 5

Actually, I would say Trump did attack Clinton. As usual, though, his details were wrong or missing.

Posted by: Edward | Oct 20, 2016 9:52:36 AM | 6

Clinton knows how to provoke him. He reacts too quickly. They both seem to think they own the Middle East.

Posted by: dh | Oct 20, 2016 10:09:26 AM | 7

...
Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.
Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2

Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy, and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because it IS their fault.
We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government" governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not to notice. But the writing is on the wall...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 20, 2016 10:14:49 AM | 8

The race was lost in the first debate. Trump clearly didn't prepare for it and ended up repeating himself after the first fifteen minutes. He had the attention of 100 million voters and a thousand possible attack angles against Hillary and The Establishment but he blew it.

Posted by: fort sensible | Oct 20, 2016 10:17:20 AM | 9

I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.

Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon - there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA ...

It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ... and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that it'll make them feel better.

Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!

Posted by: rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10

b:

- I'm quite sure Global Warming is not high on rural voters radar (unless you said that in snark ???)

The first to blame are the moderators of such debates,(...) who do not ask questions that are relevant for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
Wallace kept interruptions to a minimum (compared to 1st 2 debates). He asked both of them uncomfortable questions, evenhanded IMO. He asked a lot of questions important to most voters, just neither of them had any insightful responses: "My tax plan is better then your tax plan". little in the way of vision from either of them.

Syria: Trump is emphatic... "Putin out maneuvered U.S.'. Great. What are you going to do Donald? What about US arming AQ based rebels for so long? Saudi sponsoring/funding there and in Yemen? Not much. He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book (realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about it). Trump backed off... completely.

Hillary... a little tough talk on Putin & not much else. Vapid. "Yes, I voted for Iraq. But...".

2 thumbs down for both on Syria/ME (can I give 3?)

I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't say what other people who watched though of it.
What I read reflected my view: Trump was best he's been through 1st 30 minutes or so... stuck to topic of questions & surprised me a bit with 1/2 way cogent answers. Best I've heard from him entire campaign. Most of "reviews" I read thought the same.

Then he went off the farm answering about 12 (?) new groping & looked like an idiot. Really dumb to say they had "been discredited", he looked like ao liar.

HRC was on point on this one, she has worked for women' issues so good for her. But... AFAIC we're considering prez qualifications here, not audition to a Gloria Steinem fan club.

Nothing but rehashed gossip. Pathetic.

SCOTUS: Trump thinks Scalia was "brilliant", wants to get Roe/Wade overturned. I guess he's had an epiphany. He'll grab your pu**y and f**k her (if a perfect 10) in back seat of his limo, but deny it and outlaw abortion. Haa haa! Let's call it a Constitutional Principle. Congrats Donald, you're starting to look like a real conservative!!!

b, you blame media/moderators... I dun'o. To me, this is America now. Angry and confused poplulation... been lied to about so much for so long people don't know whether to wind-their-ass or scratch-their-watch. The "candidates" (all of 'em) are in a well rehearsed feed back loop informed by same advisors with same opinions they were all given decades ago, trying to "teach" their own how to look presidential. An act. It's not even lesser of 2 evils AFAIC, it's beyond that.

Almost like looking for Enlightenment in sewage pipes. No soul or inspiration from either or their parties. Media only purposed with making money while celebrating their "success" while everything's falling apart around them. Almost like Wall Street.

Almost... dead. :(

...

I will vote for Jill, no longer think she could have done anything in these debate forums though. Still think she's by far, got best ideas.

...

I could get behind a million (ten?) man march in DC demanding canceling election, starting over, creating completely new process to get on ballot. Just throw everything we do now out, go through some chaos... be diligent and persistent until something worthwhile starts to show up. Hope people can rise above petty qualification metrics (like 2nd amendment, or SCOTUS "Constitutional interpretations" little more then masked fixing to get what some group wants). Our problems have gotten beyond our grasp, are mostly obscured in not just debate, but I think now in consciousness... rudderless.

Very very serious situation.

Posted by: jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11

"In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States," Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost."

Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping' forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.

Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017.
QEn+ already cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'.
US national 'debt' (sic) will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.

Posted by: chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 10:41:32 AM | 12

Suggestion: never report on a debate you didn't watch. Trump came out very strongly against abortion.

Posted by: Diana | Oct 20, 2016 10:42:18 AM | 13

Well,I didn't watch all of it,but every moment I did,he kicked her drugged up bubbleheaded phony ass,as she nodded along like a porcelain bobblehead,lying with every breath,and Trump looked and acted (purposely I'm sure)very presidential.
Of course every MSM claims differently,and the meme generated from all at the close was he rejects the democratic process,while they fix the election for zions whore,HRC.sheesh.
Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.

Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14

as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good thing

Posted by: Danny801 | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 15

And the Russian stuff,Trump had to be somewhat combative vs Russia,as the meme is Russia is helping him.So simple to read.
Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:48:48 AM | 16

@15, Danny801

Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia
Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons), but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Oct 20, 2016 10:55:06 AM | 17

For the Eric Zeuss haters amongst the commentariat - give him hell: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

For the open minded, This is an article worth mulling: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/20/realists-view-us-presidential-contest.html

Posted by: rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 11:12:29 AM | 18

B, you're right, especially with your last assertion - it never was.

Posted by: Pnyx | Oct 20, 2016 11:14:22 AM | 19

The debates would be more relevant if third-party candidates were included.

That is very unlikely to happen unless we change voting method.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Don't miss: Rigged.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 20, 2016 11:15:56 AM | 20

Agree entirely that the "presidential debates" are hardly that at all with questions about whether Trump "believes" something Hillary said, dominating.

I could care less about whether one candidate "believes" another. I want to hear a problem and the candidate's proposed solution, not some visceral playground emotions.

Posted by: Bardi | Oct 20, 2016 11:20:38 AM | 21

Neither candidate is even remotely qualified to be the executive. Declare "None of The Above" and stay home and don't vote on November 8th.

Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 11:43:56 AM | 22

I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with more precision, not just his usual rambling.

jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11
He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book (realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about it). Trump backed off...
YES, major point.

Here is a good take
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/trumps-lonely-moment-of-truth/

Posted by: Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 11:50:24 AM | 23

Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.

This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving as Commander in Chief.

Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation, the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients' Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go. Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced she's in her right mind.

So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?

What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?

What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their allies?

What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough psychological warfare?

What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military force? You know, the world's police force.

What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is where it all begins?

What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World' leaders.

Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this monster. I don't. Do you?

This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government wet dream.

Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War

Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR

Your vote is either for War or against War.

It's that simple...
Posted by: h | Oct 20, 2016 11:56:00 AM | 24

I kind of like Zuesse, I just think he's a truly awful writer.

Posted by: RudyM | Oct 20, 2016 12:07:38 PM | 25

Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.
Posted by: dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14

I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where 'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.

The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Oct 20, 2016 12:18:04 PM | 26

Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination '60s.

Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely.

May you be born(e) into interesting times.

AG

Posted by: ArthurGilroy | Oct 20, 2016 12:34:11 PM | 27

@27 I completely agree, Arthur.

The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017, plenty of time for a new election.

Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!

Posted by: PokeTheTruth | Oct 20, 2016 12:43:53 PM | 28

24

That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS' together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.

Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA. There's zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class. Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.

This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.

Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.

Posted by: chipnik | Oct 20, 2016 12:44:41 PM | 29

Clinton is a midwesterner through and through. She loves east coast cockledoodle dandy thats for sure.

Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Oct 20, 2016 12:48:15 PM | 30

Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates, it is rather hopeless to explain.

Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who is not a bimbo?

The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with crappy software.

But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.

Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton. Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point the scope of name-dropping is narrow.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 12:58:10 PM | 31

Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!


Posted by: Nur Adlina | Oct 20, 2016 1:00:32 PM | 32

Did anybody see Gary Johnson on Jimmy Kimmel? Kimmel kind of semi-mocked him, which was deserved.
Can't see any point in voting for Johnson.

It's funny how the MSM latched on to Trump's comment about conceding potential defeat. Somebody must've wired a memo to go all-in on that tidbit as the theme for the debate.
Posted by: bbbb | Oct 20, 2016 1:03:48 PM | 33

Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn.

Posted by: Blue | Oct 20, 2016 1:11:34 PM | 34

What Trump should say?:

He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.


Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail???

Posted by: mike k | Oct 20, 2016 1:15:02 PM | 35

As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.

Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.

Rigged from the get go is definitely true.

What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed.

Posted by: Michael | Oct 20, 2016 1:16:58 PM | 36


h, 24

"Your vote is either for War or against War.

It's that simple."

Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.

Posted by: EnglishOutsider | Oct 20, 2016 1:41:59 PM | 37

29

My position is not ludicrous!

Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten me.

The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton. Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.

A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war

Posted by: h | Oct 20, 2016 1:49:33 PM | 38

I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.

I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration, which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.

But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump 2016.

Posted by: TG | Oct 20, 2016 2:00:36 PM | 39

debate is over!
Back to the real world.
Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
OCT 20
Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.

The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).

They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1476976485

Posted by: schlub | Oct 20, 2016 2:07:30 PM | 40

I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem. Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running them.

Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)

Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.

Posted by: Erelis | Oct 20, 2016 2:08:01 PM | 41

h, 29

Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?

TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.

Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.

Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm#Political_Hotspots
Posted by: Mike | Oct 20, 2016 2:11:46 PM | 42

Michael says:

As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed

bingo!

boycott, divest(disinvest), sanction(ratify)

Posted by: john | Oct 20, 2016 2:25:23 PM | 43

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for any competent/ principled politician opposing her. Oops, guess that counts out Sanders and Trump.
Hillary is so vulnerabld to attack due to her pure evil, it remarkable there is no serious contenders - Except mabye Jill stein.

What happened to Trump being a genius b ?

how much Posada emails did Trump use in the debate ? What a moron.
And saying he will jail Hillary ? Make sure you don't' lose moron, because otherwise you'll be the one going to jail.

Posted by: tom | Oct 20, 2016 2:28:14 PM | 44

42

Thanks for the resource, Mike.

I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from.'

39

Awesome comment!

Posted by: h | Oct 20, 2016 2:44:42 PM | 45

Here is an excellent overview on the White Helmets:
http://theduran.com/the-continuing-story-of-the-white-helmets-hoax

.... while Mr Raed Saleh has a truely humanistic piece in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/we-have-tried-every-kind-of-death-possible.html
(comments disallowed, I wonder why)

btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13 when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.

Posted by: Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 3:01:33 PM | 46

Wizzy @ 2: Ditto!

Not only a disservice b, but, by design, a distraction. All hail the empire's newest pawn, HRC.

Posted by: ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 47

Chronicles of a dying country...move on, nothing to see here.

Posted by: telescope | Oct 20, 2016 3:17:08 PM | 48

Qoppa @46.

Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going?

Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013. It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20. So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for them to take an effective role in the PR business.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/qa-syria-white-helmets-150819142324132.html

Posted by: Yonatan | Oct 20, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 49

b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was.'

No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an engaged demos. That's just the way it is. No to Clinton, no to Trump. No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.

Posted by: jfl | Oct 20, 2016 3:24:25 PM | 50

P.S.---As Wizzy alluded to, Trump, for whatever reason, is the only candidate almost guaranteed to funnel votes to HRC, the empire's choice.

Posted by: ben | Oct 20, 2016 3:26:18 PM | 51

It just a Dreams. Please dun READ!

There may be a ray of hope. What if Hillary incapacitated the day after her inauguration, Bill Clinton will be the de facto president. What if she died the day after her inauguration Tim Kaine will be the next president.

It's not "IF" but most likely either scenario will happen sooner than later. That old arrogant bitch won't last more than a couple of years. Hopefully, she embarked into a full-blown war in Syria, started a new front with China, dragging New Zealand, Australia, Japan, South Korea and most of the Southeast Asia Nations - another coalition of willing or a coalition of the suicide to WW3. Not to forget we are directly or indirectly fighting 8 wars around the world now.

By than the Americans’ dreams turn into the Americans’ nightmare - That's when we must hit the streets, hopefully the cops and National guards are on our sides.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 3:52:27 PM | 52

downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there.

as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.

even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election! that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"

at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham. small consolation.

Posted by: the pair | Oct 20, 2016 3:59:45 PM | 53

Did someone say pawn.

https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The-woman-behind-the-curtain-WikiLeaks-show-Lynn-Forester-de-Rothschild-helped-groom-Killary-for-Presidency

Then no reason to vote because GS is going to do it for you.
http://theduran.com/rigged-election-george-soros-controls-voting-machines-16-us-states/

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 4:59:42 PM | 54

Pawn

https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The-woman-behind-the-curtain-WikiLeaks-show-Lynn-Forester-de-Rothschild-helped-groom-Killary-for-Presidency

Voting
http://theduran.com/rigged-election-george-soros-controls-voting-machines-16-us-states/

I hope this doesn't double post

Posted by: jo6pac | Oct 20, 2016 5:00:54 PM | 55

For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.

Here is the link to the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3hJjWTLRB0
Posted by: Lochearn | Oct 20, 2016 5:29:04 PM | 56

@ Yonatan | Oct 20, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 49

Thanks!

Le Mesurier: It started with the regime bombardment of areas that were being described as liberated so by the end of 2012, areas in northern and southern Syria the regime had pulled out of areas and that gave the regime the space [...] to start bombing civilian communities.

So it was rather an independent enterprise for establishing a "civilian" ground force in "liberated" areas.


Their view is rather like a doctor and the Hippocratic Oath; their job is to save people's lives not to judge them.
Judging from the discrediting material not every one of them seems to have heard of this ... :)


Posted by: Qoppa | Oct 20, 2016 5:35:13 PM | 57

CNN Anchor Warns: ‘Illegal’ For You To Look At WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks on Sunday called attention to remarks made by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in which he appeared to warn viewers that it was “illegal” for those outside of the media to look at emails from Hillary Clinton‘s campaign chairman.
“Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us,” Cuomo told viewers.

As much as I would like to see Cumo strung up on a lamppost somewhere, I have to reluctantly agree with him on the bolded comment. My sample universe is friends, neighbors and relatives in America (none of whom I discuss politics with in the least). Yet another reason to discard the notion of ever voting in U.S. elections - it's like standing on the coastline with your arms outstretched trying to stop the tide of ignorance.

Next lifetime, I'm coming back as a surfer.

Posted by: PavewayIV | Oct 20, 2016 5:36:40 PM | 58

Previewing your Comment

"We the people" are to serve, not be served. Human real estate to be pickled with vaccines, fattened, polluted, enslaved, harvested slowly and profitably, and finally discarded as chaff, passing "our" debt on to "our" young.

Major network news funded by pharmaceutical info-ganda, warning of possible fatal side-effects of drugs that are designed to reduce the effects of diseases themselves probably caused by Monsanto's and Dupont's miraculous crop chemistry. MSM never reports on the cheaper cost of drugs around the world. Never compares peanut allergies or autism in the US vs. other countries. So true, the reporters serve the top, not the bottom.

Coca-Cola crying foul when the Clintonian team supports a sugar tax. We like our children fat, our teeth rotted, and our workers diabetic.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/hillary-clintons-coke-problem/

https://medium.com/@ASterling/clinton-foundation-and-an-unhealthier-generation-ce13a62c22c7#.o5jrutn3b

Schooled as simple acquiescent button pushers, to pay the lifetime equivalent of 3 mortgages covering housing, health, credit cards, and education, to ascend to the lower 3rd quintile of economic status. "Investments," we are.

HRC let it out: We invest in educating people because "we" intend to reap a reward, in other words earn a profit from "our" population. Growth. Billions of $$$ to Israel and Saudi Arabia while schools crumble, no jobs to be had, and families are bankrupted by insurance companies while health care races to the bottom. Thousands of opium addicts ripping off their neighbors and families for a fix, war veterans suiciding by the dozens. But how well we did in the Olympics. How beautiful our F-35 and shiny Capitol Dome. How wondrous our Viagra and Cialis, who bring you the evening news. Classy.

"We" will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back". Media doing tight shots on the Don's crotch.

4 minutes, her words, from the POTUS launch order to nuclear strike. 5 minutes to Russian surface launch and then ashes. Trump can't be trusted with the launch codes, oh no. But she can be relied on. Because experience.

She's a distorted reincarnation of some Assyrian war dog, Ishtar's bitch. Food for Mongols.

Posted by: stumpy |

Post a comment

Name:

stumpy

Email:

q@select-x.com

URL:


Remember personal info?

Allowed HTML Tags:

Text → Text
Text → Text
Text → Text

Text

Link to ACLU → Link to ACLU


"We the people" are to serve, not be served. Human real estate to be pickled with vaccines, fattened, polluted, enslaved, harvested slowly and profitably, and finally discarded as chaff, passing "our" debt on to "our" young.

Major network news funded by pharmaceutical info-ganda, warning of possible fatal side-effects of drugs that are designed to reduce the effects of diseases themselves probably caused by Monsanto's and Dupont's miraculous crop chemistry. MSM never reports on the cheaper cost of drugs around the world. Never compares peanut allergies or autism in the US vs. other countries. So true, the reporters serve the top, not the bottom.

Coca-Cola crying foul when the Clintonian team supports a sugar tax. We like our children fat, our teeth rotted, and our workers diabetic.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/07/hillary-clintons-coke-problem/

https://medium.com/@ASterling/clinton-foundation-and-an-unhealthier-generation-ce13a62c22c7#.o5jrutn3b

Schooled as simple acquiescent button pushers, to pay the lifetime equivalent of 3 mortgages covering housing, health, credit cards, and education, to ascend to the lower 3rd quintile of economic status. "Investments," we are.

HRC let it out: We invest in educating people because "we" intend to reap a reward, in other words earn a profit from "our" population. Growth. Billions of $$$ to Israel and Saudi Arabia while schools crumble, no jobs to be had, and families are bankrupted by insurance companies while health care races to the bottom. Thousands of opium addicts ripping off their neighbors and families for a fix, war veterans suiciding by the dozens. But how well we did in the Olympics. How beautiful our F-35 and shiny Capitol Dome. How wondrous our Viagra and Cialis, who bring you the evening news. Classy.

"We" will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back". Media doing tight shots on the Don's crotch.

4 minutes, her words, from the POTUS launch order to nuclear strike. 5 minutes to Russian surface launch and then ashes. Trump can't be trusted with the launch codes, oh no. But she can be relied on. Because experience.

She's a distorted reincarnation of some Assyrian war dog, Ishtar's bitch. Food for Mongols.

Post Preview
« Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main

Posted by: stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 8:31:10 PM | 68

#65 Doofus Minister

I've had a good look at your "The Donald Trump dove myth" article and I must admit that its quality far exceeds your own verbal rubbish.

It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened.

To me, that's a big step up from the NEOCON/NEOLIB false pretense garbage. I'd far rather have an honest RATIONAL and RISK ASSESSING thug than a two faced snake, which better describes your C**tory and her Kissenger/Albright gang of perfectly murderable certified war criminals. You can call him a "fascist" if you like. You obviously prefer the 1984 thuggery to more honest, above the table varieties. To each one his own.

One last note. Those goons that the Dems kept sending to Trump's rallies to stir violence up, there's now the fucking Himalayas of evidence that it's entirely real and beyond any doubt.

Guess who was the historical king of criminal spamming of shit stirring goons at political adversaries' rallies? The Bolsheviks and your own fixated Fascists/Nazis. Looks like your Hillary learned from the best, inspired by the best, via her fascist mentor Klitsinger et num al.

So, enjoy your Clintory, dear Pom, and good luck as you and yer Britannia're gonna need it if that discard of a dementia stricken half-human wins the elections.

Posted by: Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 8:31:16 PM | 69

apologies, cut and paste disaster

Posted by: stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 8:32:12 PM | 70

Wikileaks has now progressed to emails sent to Obama:

Wikileaks Releases Barack Obama’s ‘Binders of Women,’ Minorities

Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy?

The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence.

I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing. That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 20, 2016 8:32:32 PM | 71

Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others.

The powers that be can cheat but people can ignore their efforts, it's what happens in every revolution and civil war. It's hard to see how a second Clinton presidency will have any shred of legitimacy in the US or in the world.

Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him.

Don't believe anyone who says what you do or don't do doesn't matter.

Posted by: Outsider | Oct 20, 2016 8:50:36 PM | 72

@Stumpy - 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?)

The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief.

I blame Trump's old age and slow wit for not noticing this verbal Nazism and pointing it directly back at that brown-shirt ad hoc.

Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time.

Posted by: Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 8:57:12 PM | 73

To Demian: I bet that if the password was needed at all then it was gotten from shoulder surfing or half a minute alone with his tablet or laptop as he went to the toilet :)

Posted by: Outsider | Oct 20, 2016 8:58:08 PM | 74

Well said Quadriad!

Posted by: Outsider | Oct 20, 2016 9:05:08 PM | 75

Four times the frenzy, four times the froth....

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 20, 2016 9:41:51 PM | 76

Casey Neistat Touts Trump Threat to Hawk Hillary & Devious DNC Scheme to Sell TRUMP! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_YZ5LHdQM #NeverHillary #NeverTrump #JillNotHill #JillStein2016

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Oct 20, 2016 10:46:27 PM | 77

Again I apologize for reposting the whole thread--

Anyway, here is link to the most disturbing quote from HRC, imo ...

https://youtu.be/84cJdY8wkV8?t=1h10m10s


CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don’t think that is in our interest, and I don’t think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.

The goal here is to take back Mosul. It’s going to be a hard fight. I’ve got no illusions about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters.

I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off and that we will see a real — a really successful military operation. But we know we’ve got lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.

I'll be quiet, now.

Posted by: stumpy | Oct 20, 2016 10:46:59 PM | 78

Posted without comment cause I am laughing too hard.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Russia-Offers-to-Send-Election-Monitors-to-US-FBI-Says-No-20161020-0016.html

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 20, 2016 11:00:21 PM | 79

Didn't watch, but was told that Trump basically knew nothing about anything and embarrassed himself.

Foreign policy apart (whatever Clinton says now - she can't do it anyway since there's no intl. support whatsoever), the important issues mentioned in the list are certainly not Trump's strong points. Does he even understand the dangers associated with climate change?

Posted by: smuks | Oct 20, 2016 11:23:11 PM | 80

From the link of jo6pac:

Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild's apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton's economic policy, such theories don't appear so far from the truth — and only further prove the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

This is a bit misinformed conclusion. Some of you may know "Wizard of Oz". It is a famous novel for children that was used for the screenplay of an adorable movie with the same title. Not everybody knows that it was also a novel for the adults, with a key: a political satire against banking and corporate plutocracy that controlled the government of USA around 1900. If I recall, the title figure of the Wizard was Mark Hanna, and Wicked Witch of the East stood for eastern banks which at that time included the largest banks that were behind Mark Hanna (who in turn was the puppeteer of the President). Certain things change in the last 120 years, for example, the rich and famous largely abandoned the mansions in Rhode Island, but New York remains the financial capital. I somewhat doubt that Rothschild secretly have the sway over this crowd, if one would have to point to the most powerful financial entity I would pick Goldman Sachs. Yes, it helped that Lady de Rothschild was sociable, amiable and communicated well with Hillary and numerous gentlemen who could drop 100,000 on a plate to please the hostess, but at the end of the day, things were quite similar when Rothschild largely sticked to Europe.

The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism. Any way you cut it, democracy relies on convincing the citizens what is good and what is bad for them, and that still requires money. Money can come from numerous small donors or few large ones, or some combination. Unfortunately, large donors have disproportional influence, until a politician creates his/her brand, too few small donors would know about him/her. Nice thing about Sanders was that he operates largely outside the circle of large donors. That said, both Clintons and Obama entered the political scene as "outsiders".

I met rich people only few times in my life, and I must admit, it is a pleasant experience. Sleeping is comfortable, food is good, when you go to restaurant the owner greets your party very politely and explains the best dishes of the day and so on. In politics, there are reactionary fat cats and progressive fat cats, but needless to say, they tend to share certain perspective and they skew the media, the academia and the policies in a certain direction.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 20, 2016 11:26:04 PM | 81

If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power.

Posted by: virgile | Oct 20, 2016 11:31:02 PM | 82

#74 Rufie

All that, plus 4x the likelihood of being correct.

Posted by: Quadriad | Oct 20, 2016 11:56:49 PM | 83

Eat something salty while reading this. Might I suggest popcorn? :)

SuperStation wow:
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2282 titled "Breaking!!!! Internal Democrat poll: Clinton 19% Trump 77% Nationwide! " (I'm leaving the url bare on purpose because I saw some here like it that way).

The document allegedly ends with discussions on extreme "psy-ops" warfare measures to save it for Clinton. Not really "psy-ops" any more at that level but what I think the Soviets used to call "psychotronic warfare". Checking my memory here's what Wikipedia had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotronics

I doubt they'll do that because I don't see what the end game to that is supposed to be, how will they claw their way back to a normality where any election results or continued "elite"/establishment power structure makes sense? Like WWIII or false flag nukes they will only have managed to end up worse whether they realize it or not. Making large parts of a country experience a Dyatlov Pass incident is not a winning move for what ought to be obvious reasons :P

Interesting, entertaining, or both :) (or scary perhaps).

As one commenter said it could make for an extremely entertaining election f true or possible (I'll skip that debate) XD

And they should release those last pages or give them to someone who will.

Posted by: Outsider | Oct 20, 2016 11:59:26 PM | 84

@ Piotr Berman who wrote: The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism.

I heartily disagree. Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics. Your assertion that the Rothschild influence is restricted to Europe is laughable.

Joe6pac has it right......the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.

I believe that it is Piotr Berman that is misinformed.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 21, 2016 12:26:22 AM | 85

People Who Control America ? Mind Blowing Documentary HQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzrYMEvAEyw

The Only Realistic Democracy:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/10/obama-vote-rigging-is-impossible-if-in-favor-of-hillary-clinton.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8a4a821970b

With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.

I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.

Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.

Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives like "IRV" and "approval voting".

And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".

Posted by: blues | Oct 21, 2016 12:31:59 AM | 86

35

Reagan delivered Stingers to the Nirthern Alliance and Taliban, why is Reagan not in prison? Because of people like Ollie North and Dick Armitage. Because the Deep State is in control under Continuance of Government, ever since the 2001 military coup.

Trump may have gone to Catholic prep school, but he's no choir boy either.

Posted by: TheRealDonald | Oct 21, 2016 12:44:45 AM | 87

80

Hillary will win, it's in the bag, and she won't be haunted by anything at all, she doesn't have an introspective bone in her hagsack. She will be our Nero for 21st C.

"We came, we saw, he died, haww, haww, haww."

Should have been bodybagged and tagged and disposed of at sea, her, not M.

Posted by: TheRealDonald | Oct 21, 2016 12:51:20 AM | 88

More like forty times the crap.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 21, 2016 12:58:19 AM | 89

Posted by: blues | Oct 21, 2016 12:31:59 AM | 83

It is very easy to install effective voting. If it is not done then people aren't interested in doing it, not because it would be difficult.

Just as democrats signalled through long queues that they do not want people to vote in their primaries.

Wikileaks is doing a great service in clearing up the US democratic process. Like Citigroup deciding on potential candidates for the Obama administration before Obama was elected.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 21, 2016 3:34:18 AM | 90

Smuks @ 78

You said you didn't watch, but was told that Trump basically knew nothing about anything and embarrassed himself. That's the whole of the problem now isn't it, being told something by someone else rather than experiencing it yourself.

It's clear that there are a lot of people who'll tell you just what they want you to hear rather than tell you the truth. Or perhaps others who will tell you what they believe to be the case but which is, in fact, merely a gloss of their own prejudice. Wisdom tells us it is unwise to rely on either "experts" or on others when we have an opportunity to research a topic ourselves.

It is even more foolish to comment on other people's impressions when you didn't event take the trouble to form your own opinion.

Posted by: Macon Richardson | Oct 21, 2016 4:56:04 AM | 91

@ Macon Richardson | Oct 21, 2016 4:56:04 AM | 88

Not having a dog in the fight, I find it somewhat amusing to watch the opinionated exercising their doG given rights to express the same. The relish comes with their using unexamined sources for their strongly held opinions, like adopting pre-assembled POV from sources known to prevaricate and dissemble over everything of importance; BUT are not doing it NOW with this! Notably, from these paragons of self-deluded information, you will rarely find any demonstrating critical thinking and with rarer exception any capable of original thinking. Not likely to end well, this.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 21, 2016 5:32:39 AM | 92

b: "I didn't watch yesterday's debate"


You can find the debate on the internet.
So watch and after that -and only after that- you can give a jugdment.

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 21, 2016 5:59:30 AM | 93

Listen to this nutcase, could be what Hillary has in mind..This top US General is straight out of Dr Strangelove “BREAKING: US Army Chief of staff Threatens War With Russia – "We will beat you harder than ever before” link..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVrQqU1Gwc This has to be what Clinton has in mind in Syria or Ukraine. He should be physically detained and put into a straitjacket before his bodily fluids infect others.Peter Sellers was good in that film, but this lunatic would have easily got the part. Being the real thing.

Posted by: harrylaw | Oct 21, 2016 6:25:10 AM | 94


More propaganda by the mumbling Mr Tusk:
Belgium: 'Russia's strategy is to weaken the EU' - Tusk calls for unity against Moscow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJiOHrz8aSw

Posted by: L1 | Oct 21, 2016 7:02:41 AM | 95

Trump's observation that Clinton was blaming her email fiasco on 'Honest Abe' was a classic and shows that he has the wherewithall to crack Clinton's 30-years-polished public-pleasing veneer. Wonderful spontaneous rebuke.
Clinton jumping straight onto the "Putin done it" rant to detract from her criminal behaviour was dire and as Trump said, she should be in jail.

Have to say I found the last debate's presenter less biased than previous ones, but not by much.

As b said, the public is poorly served, but I have to ask if this kind of show is not exactly what the US public want.

Posted by: AtaBrit | Oct 21, 2016 7:15:08 AM | 96

Michael | 36
excellent comment.

Posted by: AtaBrit | Oct 21, 2016 7:39:35 AM | 97

"Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics."

That sounds idiotic. "Capitalists created capitalism as cover." What was the rest of your degree in, basket-weaving?

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 21, 2016 7:45:24 AM | 98

For those who watched the debate:

1. Chris Wallace did an excellent job.

2. I agree with Daisy Luther:
In the final debate of the 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump was the clear winner.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/daisy-luther/news-networks-watching-debate/

Posted by: From The Hague | Oct 21, 2016 7:54:13 AM | 99

Oh, here's a shock. Serial fraudster and federal convict James O'Keefe Refuses to Release Unedited Video: We Would 'See a Different Story'

Literally every major O'Keefe production has been debunked by fact-checkers, reporters, the GAO and judges. ACORN, Shirley Sherrod, NPR and so forth. Literally every major O'Keefe video has been proved to have been deceptively edited, including videos by O'Keefe affiliates like David Daleiden who, most recently, produced the fraudulent Planned Parenthood videos during the Summer of 2015....

Yet O'Keefe is refusing -- for the first time ever -- to release the raw, unedited footage from these new tapes. His justification is a tacit admission of guilt.

Of course, plenty of unedited footage is available of Trump inciting violence from the podium. "But, but, but -- both sides! Corrupt! Benghazi! Huuuuuuuge!:

The Daily Banter notes Trump has donated money to O'Keefe. Did he pay for this one?

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 21, 2016 8:04:25 AM | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.