Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 11, 2016

U.S. Election Thread 2016-01

Months ago I was asked who will win. I responded: "Not Clinton."


Posted by b on May 11, 2016 at 17:53 UTC | Permalink


It is the conventional expectations Trump will adhere to PC; be kind and gentle going against “Crooked Hillary” in the general debates.

Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush (41), thinks Not.

Trump is Free to Throw Mud on Clinton

(with Vid)

”Catherine Austin Fitts, says this presidential election will be most painful for Hillary Clinton. Fitts explains, “Here’s the thing, Clinton has never had to answer for the real deal issues and dirt on the Clintons. Here’s what’s interesting. One of the reasons the Clintons never had to answer is so much of it was done with the Bush family and the Republican establishment. They were really partners in many of the things they did.

Before the campaign, Roger Stone came out with a book on the Bushes and a book on the Clintons. It was sort of a compendium on all the real deal dirt. That’s now in the body politic. The second thing we see is George H.W. Bush, W. Bush and Jeb Bush all come out and say they are not going to back Trump. That means Trump is free to throw the mud, and it will hit the Clintons, but it will splatter all over the Bushes. Now, Trump is free to go.”

Hillary has “Friends in High Places - has received Nearly $75,000 in DOJ Political Contributions”

It's nice to have friends in high places, especially if one is being investigated for mishandling classified government material.[.]

Clinton has received nearly $75,000 in political contributions from individuals who listed the Department of Justice as their employer [.]

Patrick Buchanan: What is Paul Ryan Up to?

~ ~ ~ ~

WOW, the political families! Can this election get more convoluted?

Posted by: likklemore | May 11 2016 18:44 utc | 1

The exit polls in WV that showed half of Sanders voters would vote for Trump over Clinton is telling. WV is unique in that coal is a big issue. But coal aside, Trump's view on both trade and on defense resemble Sander's stances more than Clinton's.

Posted by: DTD | May 11 2016 18:46 utc | 2

H. Clinton has the worst criminally evil track record and political heinous nature that anyone 5% truthful enough about the worst of her could slaughter her as a candidate. Sanders the coward refused.
She is one of the most vulnerable to attacks of most candidates, I would say, in all of recent US history.

If the atrocious Trump doesn't fuck up like the usual moron his is, and he goes on the attack, he should win in a landslide.

Posted by: tom | May 11 2016 19:22 utc | 3

If Roger Stone's book is even half right the Clintons are done. Just a personal aside here on Stone, I used to know him back in eighties and nineties and would see him from time to time and found him an engaging and sincere dude who was surprisingly honest--I knew him well enough to at least know that. So I believe his take on the Clintons. The question is will Trump use all the material in Stone's book? I know politics well enough to know that Trump will have to give something up before the power elite will allow him to use that material--unless he wants to suffer a heart attack or a plane crash.

Posted by: Banger | May 11 2016 19:40 utc | 4

hey b - you still feel that way?

Posted by: james | May 11 2016 19:43 utc | 5

Why Putin could be completely wrong about Trump

Posted by: nmb | May 11 2016 20:07 utc | 6

nmb, i image that President Putin is making no assumptions wrt Trump. Of course Trump is at least theoretically a better outcome for Russia than Clinton, as we know her form, and we don't know Trumps yet. In fact, though I am not a US citizen, if I were voting in Nov, I would prefer Trump over Clinton without question, despite the fact that I suspect that at best he is a clown, and on his public performances to date as a candidate, completely unsuited for high public office.

In some ways he reminds me of Boris Yeltsin, except he had the excuse of the demon drink!

Posted by: Razor Edge | May 11 2016 20:24 utc | 7

@7 Razor Edge, I understand your thinking. Indeed, the most certain of all is that "Hellary" will definitely follow the neocon agenda and the Kissinger-type Realpolitik.Which means it's the worst and most dangerous option in the middle of Cold War 2.0.

Posted by: nmb | May 11 2016 20:40 utc | 8

Hillary will have maximum institutional support. She's gonna have over a billion dollars for her campaign. And even more if it looks tight. Wall St and all the other cartels from Healthcare, Defense, Trial lawyers, etc will pour as much money as necessary. She will have the complete backing of the media. She will launch the biggest campaign of fear that has been seen in America. Both the Democrat and Republican establishment will be her campaign echo chamber.

Trump is already stacking his team with establishment types. Goldman Sachs man has been appointed as his campaign's fund raising chief. Can he continue to run his campaign as a maverick or will he succumb and get crushed in November?

Posted by: ab initio | May 11 2016 20:40 utc | 9

@7 razor edge.. that is much like my own thinking on it too..

Posted by: james | May 11 2016 21:27 utc | 10

@ Banger 4
Not just Stone, there is also former Clinton insider Larry Nichols. If he remains healthy, he has pledged to help stop Hillary, says ..”if she’s not stopped, It’s over." “[for the country]

@ nmb 8

Trump has the support of neocons ---in the wings out of view are neocon supporters….think John Bolton and his types.

@Ab inito 9

it will Clinton’s billion dollars vs. Trump’s billion dollars. But it won’t buy this (s)election. O.t.h, it may just be Trump vs. Biden. DOJ’s reputation is at question.

Hillary, the most polarizing person in USSA politics, cannot disown Obamacare – she was part of that administration. Soon the double digit increases for Obamacare premiums will be in the mail and will become a campaign issue. So much for saving that $2,500!

It will be which side of the same coin get to count the vote. It has become a one-party system. Trump presents as a true outsider – the establishment should have kept silent if they wanted Trump to lose the nomination. They (the .01%) have underestimated the angst.

Posted by: likklemore | May 11 2016 21:29 utc | 11

@12 The more I see of these grinning overpaid progressives the more I think Trump will win.

Posted by: dh | May 11 2016 22:27 utc | 13

"One of the reasons the Clintons never had to answer is so much of it was done with the Bush family and the Republican establishment. They were really partners in many of the things they did."

This is my view of things. A lot of the real Clinton scandals probably tend to implicate too many (highly connected) Republicans for the Republicans to go after the Clintons about them.

Posted by: RudyM | May 11 2016 23:24 utc | 14

On the other hand, Trump is way too cozy with the Clintons and their social circles:

One of Trump’s closest friends and backers is a dual Israeli citizen Stewart Rahr, who goes by the nickmane “Stewie Rah Rah.” Rahr’s pharmaceutical company Kinray, Inc. cashed in on the spike in sales of the antibiotic Cipro in the wake of the anthrax attacks in October 2001. I believe this attack was yet another false flag. . . .

. . . . Stewie Rah Rah’s business card features himself posed with Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

Rahr also likes to pal around with the Clinton crime family. The mogul’s business card is a fake $1 billion bill showing Rahr with golf buddies Bill Clinton and Trump over the motto “In Stewart We Trust” – his own name substituted for God’s.

Posted by: RudyM | May 11 2016 23:31 utc | 15

Donald Trump Named in Latest Panama Papers Leak

The leaked documents show that the Trump empire is linked to 32 offshore companies, including the real estate project Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower in Panama.

And there you have it. 'Selection' is the name of the game in the USA, in 'leaks', in 'elections', in the composition of the 'elite' itself.

American Nightmare? New Poll Has Trump and Clinton Neck and Neck. Can't top that for concision.

Get a paper ballot in November and write-in your choices for potus, senator, and representative.

We need to

'get to measure ourselves for size, as a group, and be impressed. We may start to see our group as a social force – and become one. It’s what humans do at critical junctures in history – including our atomized, ionized selves.'

Posted by: jfl | May 12 2016 0:29 utc | 16

I am going to do a bit of projection of what my gut is telling me.

My gut is telling me that it will be Sanders against Trump and not Clinton II. I have no real data to back that up but smile when I think of the propaganda shit storm that would be.

End of projection.

Trump is a wannabee global plutocrat. I read comments here about how Trump is going to do something that might be good for the public and I just roll my eyes. Trump is the "Don't throw me in the briar patch." candidate for the global plutocrats and private finance......another dictator to be manipulated with ease and a great cover for doing real bad shit to the public.

Posted by: psychohistorian | May 12 2016 1:02 utc | 17

It is highly doubtful, with emailgate unfolding, will Clinton make it to the Convention?

This website keeps updates on Hillary’s emailgate with Vid links of interviews on CNBC and other networks

Ex NSA Chief, Michael Hayden in TV interview

“Hillary went to a very dark place with her server”….I would lose respect for scores of foreign intelligence services around the world if they were not already thumbing through every email that was kept on Hillary's server.'

And on FoxBusiness, Judge Andrew Napolitano drops a bombshell-if credible -

"There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin, between the foreign ministry and the intelligence services, about whether they should release 20,000 hacked, stolen emails from Hillary Clinton."

(Vid @ 1:07)

what or who is Napolitano's source?

Posted by: likklemore | May 12 2016 1:07 utc | 18

I thought I read somewhere that the Russians were thinking about releasing copies of Clinton's emails that they somehow acquired. I thought it was on Sputnik, but maybe Reddit. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

Posted by: Mischi | May 12 2016 1:44 utc | 19

I am of the opinion that the emails will eventually go away. Note: that is just my opinion.

I suspect that the republocrats will probably avoid Trump ... though who knows what the 'rank file' will do.

Bernie will only be in the mix if the email issue actually grows legs ... the demicans know he can be co-opted of JFK'd depending on who the VP is.

Why bring in Russia? They'd be better off holding the emails they have as leverage against Killary, or Hellary.

And the beat goes on ...

Posted by: rg the lg | May 12 2016 2:22 utc | 20

Some defenses for Hilary:

Wikileaks had a field day with State Department e-mails, so a private server is not necessarily more secure. And it is not like Russians do not know what American diplomats are doing. The secrecy is for the public, and the vital secrets, those that would be dangerous for the foreigners to know, should not be given to DoS.

Clintonism (colonial version of Laborite "Third Way") is first and formost about "triangulation", and only secondarily about neo-con positions etc. Basically, Sanders can capture enough delegates so Hillary will have to get "superdelegate" votes, and the Democratic apparatus probably already noticed that Sanders has much better poll numbers. I expect that Hillary will make a fresh triangulation to present a credible platform. So far, she allegedly dropped her support for the newest batch of trade treaties.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | May 12 2016 3:09 utc | 21

One thing that scares me about Sanders is that he becomes another Roosevelt if he happens to win. I like many of his ideas but this dude just like Hillary is a war monger. He supported almost every war as democrat(From Iraq to Afghanistan)Roosevelt also did the same he even did everything possible to push the US into world war two as this was revealed by historians such as John Toland,Robet stinnett,and Charles Callan Tansill,or officers such as George Morgenstern and Rear Admiral Edwin T. Layton.Roosevelt is oftentimes remember as a great socialist but to me without denying the advantages that the New deal brought in and the Glass Steagall act he has always been one of the chief conspirators against peace and the man who signed the infamous Quincy agreement.No one has ever been more of an imperialist than Roosevelt,which family after all was in banking and tied through marriage to an opium selling rich old family named the Delano.To me the game is rigged since the beginning in this election and I don't believe any of this candidate truly want the well being of America.

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | May 12 2016 4:33 utc | 22

Biden will be the next president, if he doesn't get shot first.

Posted by: Denis | May 12 2016 4:33 utc | 23

tom@3 Tom, you said "If the atrocious Trump doesn't fuck up like the usual moron his is. . . ." Who are you comparing him to when you call him atrocious? Mother Teresa? Albert Schweitzer? Compare him to the ghouls, vampires, weasel-dicks, who inhabit the corridors of power in the US and Europe. Compare him with the dross both the Democrats and Republicans have vomited up as candidates for the last 24 years and he is closer to Teresa or Schweitzer than any of them.

As to being the "usual moron his (sic) is" [your typo I suppose meaning "he" rather than "his"], he's gone from the run-of-the-mill New York billionaire to the presumptive Republican nominee for president and by your own admission, will clean the floor with Hillary on the way to the presidency.

Pardon my criticism but I'm on a campaign to get people to think through what they mean to say, to critique it before they write it down. I'm sure if you had reflected on your comment before you made it, you would have written something much more cogent and much closer to what you really meant to communicate.

This ain't Dodge City! Few of us are Marshal Dillon! There were a lot of guys in the old west who were the fastest draw. Most of them got dead quick because you've also got to shoot straight. That's far more important than the fast draw.

Thanks for hearing my quibble. I remain

Cordially yours,

Macon Richardson

Posted by: Macon Richardson | May 12 2016 6:24 utc | 24

no matter who wins,the rest of us lose...

Posted by: brian | May 12 2016 7:23 utc | 25

@Macon Richardson

This ain't Dodge City! Few of us are Marshal Dillon! There were a lot of guys in the old west who were the fastest draw. Most of them got dead quick because you've also got to shoot straight. That's far more important than the fast draw.

Good comments. I an't taking sides. Hero dies young :-)

We express sincerely sometimes unknowingly using wrong choices: words or phrases and Netizen get mad, label you antisemitic, racist and more.....

Labeling netizen “racist” are the real racists here.

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 12 2016 7:39 utc | 26

Here is what you need! Very much! Please read it carefully, twice.

Nothing else will help:

Posted by: blues | May 12 2016 9:53 utc | 27

In the meantime, ISO has endorsed Stein, with this lovely interview:

If given access to the Green Party's policies by a truly independent fourth estate, I think that a majority of voters would quickly abandon the war criminals and financiers of the democratic and republican parties.

Posted by: Vatrahos | May 12 2016 10:04 utc | 28

ofc Clinton will win, if Trump has the slightest chance, they'll just do a Kennedy ^^

Posted by: xmasucks | May 12 2016 10:24 utc | 29

So much for Trump’s vaunted neutral approach to the Palestine/Israel quagmire. During the past week, in chronological order:

- Trumps states that Israel should continue expanding its settlements in the West Bank:

- Trump appoints Steven Mnuchin as national finance chairman. (Mnuchin, an alumni of both Goldman Sachs and Soros Fund Management, is a consummate insider; one of the tribalist blue bloods of the Wall Street variety.) Mnuchin has donated frequently to Democrats, including to both Clinton and Obama. So we have a tribalist Democrat appointed by Republican Trump as Finance Chairman. Is there perhaps a message (a seal of approval) being sent here?

- Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist billionaire, throws his support behind Donald Trump, stating: ” he will be good for Israel.”

- Trump announces he will visit Israel prior to elections.

One is left to wonder what kind of deal the self-professed dealmaker made. By covering both horses in a two horse race, the zionists have assured at least one clear-cut winner in this presidential race and it won’t be the Palestinians.

Posted by: pantaraxia | May 12 2016 10:30 utc | 30

chipnick couldn't resist for long ^^

Posted by: xmasucks | May 12 2016 11:06 utc | 31


I have a semantic issue with your thread title "US Election Thread 2016"

Should read "2016 US Selection Thread 2016"

I will not be voting in 2016. But I will vote twice in 2020 just to even things out.

Posted by: ALberto | May 12 2016 11:28 utc | 32

People who say they won't vote because they despise both major parties have a moral duty to vote third party (I intend to vote for Jill Stein). The way to refute the argument that votes for third parties are wasted votes is for enough people to vote third party.

Posted by: lysias | May 12 2016 11:51 utc | 33

@ likklemore #18 & Mischi #19 Be lovely but the source is HIGHLY suspect I believe . . . . one Sorcha Faal

Posted by: kiwicris | May 12 2016 11:57 utc | 34

collective stupidity is rarely as animated as during election season.

cultural placebo = sham therapy.

Democratic politics are stupid, not so much a reality TV show as a glorified version of the policeman’s identity parade, but in reverse time: the mass of voters identify the perp, and then he gets to go and commit his crimes

simultaneously parodying the utility of 20/20 hindsight.

Posted by: john | May 12 2016 12:10 utc | 35

It may be that the Clintons have been skimming off the top - the donations they listed weren't the same amount as the donors claimed on their tax reports.

Posted by: Mischi | May 12 2016 12:58 utc | 36

lysias @35:

The way to refute the argument that votes for third parties are wasted votes is for enough people to vote third party.

I think the way to refute the argument is to explain that the major parties collude to exclude. This is a major part of the 'rigged' political system that even Trump and Sanders don't speak of (because they are duopoly candidates).

Third-parties ARE viable. They always have been. The 'illusion of choice' is entirely constructed to ensure that power remains in the 'right hands'.

The barriers to third-parties are entirely artificial:

Citizens United made corporations people and money speech. The result: large donors to SuperPACs (oligarchs) have undue influence on candidate selection and 'viability'.

'One person one vote';
To most Americans this simple rule is the very essence of democracy. But it is deeply flawed as it ensures lesser-evil voting. A better system is ranked/scored choice where each voter gets multiple votes to allocate. In such a system, voters have EQUAL VOTES but can allocate some of their votes to a preferred choice instead of a lesser-evil.

Vote hurdles.
Presidential election financing and debates each require a minimum number of votes in the previous election or minimum interest from polling. This makes some sense BUT money-in-politics and lesser-evil voting mean that third-party candidates can't qualify.

Together, these barriers kettle voters into a false choice between one of the duopoly's establishment candidates.

What to do about it:

1) Help to overturn Citizens United;

2) Spread the word;

3) Vote third-party.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 12 2016 13:39 utc | 37

35;Jewish females are the most out of touch with reality humans in America today.
Seriously.She would be the most malleable person in American history,as she would definitely be a concern troll,with intervention worldwide for the poor victims of neoliberal disaster we've inflicted on them.IOW;a know nothing.How is she re Russia?China?I have a feeling PussyRiot is good to her.Scary as hell,actually,but thankfully no chance.
Yes,Trump has stated that he will visit Israel before the election.Sheesh.I have no idea why,other than to combat the absolutely still venomous press from the ZioMSM?
I hope he changes his mind,as it won't help him with them.

Posted by: dahoit | May 12 2016 14:25 utc | 38

39;The only third party which would be reported on by the MSM would be a pro Zion as the 51st state(but number 1 overall)candidate.Will Stein promote such?

Posted by: dahoit | May 12 2016 14:27 utc | 39


Shut up with the "cankles".

Stop reducing women or men to their physical appearance.

Disagree with her policies all you want but you betray your shallowness with insults about her legs.

Women have been judged and judged and judged about their physical appearance.

So people shouldn't vote for her because she doesn't fit some Hollywood ideal?
Shallow, shallow, shallow.

And yes, i am equally sick of comments on Donald's hair.

Fighting Bob

Posted by: Fighting Bob | May 12 2016 15:30 utc | 40

I’ve always, since forever, said that Killary cannot win,.

She is simply too horrible, and too hated, rightly so. Remember, she lost to Obama, a one time loser already… I may have to eat my hat as I don’t wear ties. Still, I think NOT.

Recall, electronic vote switching / etc. took place in Obama vs. Romney, in favor of Romney, but the Obama (and in general Dem advantage) was too massive for it to work. One can only do so much! It provides a small boost -> 2-5%. Enough to elect G. W. Bush vs. Gore - not to mention the Supreme Court, etc. — No links, look it up.

The problem of the DEMS is that they have not invested in vote-flipping, and don’t control the apparatus, as they have the ‘natural’ advantage in the sense that the US population today is more DEM than REP.

Their investment was purely implemented to consolidate the power structure (top-down) of the Dem party, to blithely, confidently, ensure all the Dem voters would come in to:

Coronate their Queen

DEMS used, and use, fraud and shenanigans within the party (to keep Killary tops), but not outside, or not clearly so for the mo.

That strategy has now come apart thanks to both Sanders and Trump, both extemely popular opponents attacking her from different angles.

In any case, nothing much will change re. Foreign policy.

..if posted before i missed it …

Counterpunch, How H.C. bought the loyalty of 33 DEM state parties

Posted by: Noirette | May 12 2016 15:51 utc | 41

trump or clinton have a ways to go to catch up to the filipino politicians -
... the front-runner who got elected Monday as the next president, Rodrigo Duterte, also known as the ‘Donald Trump of the Philippines’, may have crossed all limits when he branded the Pope “son of a whore”, told the American and Australian ambassadors to “shut their mouths”, recounted how he had personally killed inmates during a prison riot in Davao in 1989 where he used to be Mayor or boasted about his mistresses and sexual prowess.
more here..

Posted by: james | May 12 2016 16:16 utc | 42

It doesn't matter who is going to win. 'They' can put a sock-puppet in the White House, it will be the same ; more war, strife ,oppression both abroad and at home. In fact, as a Muslim; I can tell you that the road has, is and will continue to be paved where-in the nefarious folks who brought us 9-11 (Zionists and fascists)will orchestrate another , if not bigger calamity that will usher in a very dark chapter for the World, America and especially Muslims(here and around abroad).Following this 'event',Muslims living in America(citizens or otherwise) will be rounded-up and put on trains or whatever and sent to internment(FEMA)camps; while more war will intensify in the Middle East. Say I didn't say so. You watch and see.I've been a ' watcher' since I was ten years old..I know how these Satanists think. Coming to roads and highways near you will be billboards asking if you know any Muslims to call, and it will be all over T.V too. I'm also certain that there will be many good hearted Christian(not evangelists or Zionist types) etc who will help; perhaps even an underground rail-road or something to help Muslims at a risk to themselves. And no, I don't wear, or have a tin foil hat nor do I see unicorns in my back yard. God watch over us all.

Posted by: bored muslim | May 12 2016 16:18 utc | 43

Trump has his own privately hired security. Kennedying him might be harder than it was for JFK.

Posted by: lysias | May 12 2016 16:37 utc | 44


In less than 3 weeks we Californians will decide either Killary or Bernie the Democratic party presidential’s nominees. A critical must win State. Fortunately or unfortunately, Bernie won the West Virginia primary and may win California.

I sincerely believe Bernie is a Neoliberal (warmonger beside others) and have said Israel have the right to defense itself and US will pay Egypt and Israel billions to continue endless wars and murders in the West banks Gaza and elsewhere

I was prepared for upset, changed my voting preference from Green Party to no preference voter. I can vote in California’s Democratic party primary and other local issues.

Killary or Bernie?

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 12 2016 17:27 utc | 45

Donald Trump Calls Hillary Clinton “Trigger Happy” as She Courts Neocons

Trump expressed a rarely heard appreciation for the "other side to this story," and implied that casualties inflicted by the US military in the Middle East were far higher than reported

Donald Trump derided Hillary Clinton’s hawkish foreign policy record over the weekend, a glimpse into a potential general election strategy of casting Clinton as the more likely of the two to take the nation to war.

Trump pivoted into a tirade against Clinton as a warmonger.

“On foreign policy, Hillary is trigger happy,” Trump told the crowd. “She is, she’s trigger happy. She’s got a bad temperament,” he said. “Her decisions in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya have cost trillions of dollars, thousands of lives and have totally unleashed ISIS.”

And he expressed a rarely heard appreciation for the “other side to this story,” noting: “Thousands of lives yes, for us, but probably millions of lives in all fairness, folks” for the people of the Middle East.

Trump implied that casualties inflicted by the U.S. military were far higher than reported. “They bomb a city” and “it’s obliterated, obliterated,” he said. “They’ll say nobody was killed. I’ll bet you thousands and thousands of people were killed every time you see that television set.”

“If we would’ve done nothing,” Trump argued, “we would’ve been in much better shape.”

Posted by: the don | May 12 2016 17:37 utc | 46

Write Me In! Robert K. Joyce, 01060 (blues)

No fake "Green Party" compromises!

Strategic simple score ("simple score") voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all (ignore them as if the did not exist), or strategically bid from five (5) to ten (10) votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates (20 ballot entries, where each voter counts up their ballot entries by numbering them), and then simply add all the votes up.

Any reasonably intelligent person can see how strategic simple score voting would completely disrupt and remove the two-party spoiler effect.

For example:

Social justice voters could give 10 votes to Dennis Kucinich, 10 to Cynthia McKinney, 10 to Jesse Ventura, 10 votes to blues, and 5 to 9 to Bernie Sanders.

Conservative voters could give 10 votes to Jimmy Duncan and 9 to Donald Trump.

In each case their power of franchise would only be diminished by 10% or 20% or 50% if their first choice failed. Hardly at all.

The vote-for-one two-party system would grind to a halt.

STOP listening to the election methods punditariat camps! Especially Wikipedia.

They are all jerks.

Simply demand power. Nothing more nor less.

Posted by: blues | May 12 2016 17:45 utc | 47

"Jewish females are the most out of touch with reality humans in America today."

This statement will never go beyond what is known as your opinion.

Posted by: ruralito | May 12 2016 18:19 utc | 48

IOW: Information Operations Warfare

Posted by: okie farmer | May 12 2016 18:38 utc | 49

My Chinese fortune cookie just told me, "You are not paranoid enough." I agree.

Posted by: lysias | May 12 2016 18:54 utc | 50

brian @ 26: "no matter who wins,the rest of us lose..."

If you're working class, yes.

If anyone believes the Empires course will change based on the outcome of this "election", they're delusional. Enjoy the Theater.

Posted by: ben | May 12 2016 19:01 utc | 51

Well, RT has just been reporting on the White Paper that would replace the BBC Trust that is now being circulated. FT reports: BBC Trust to be Abolished, Replaced by Unitary Board:

The BBC’s current governing body will be scrapped and replaced by a new unitary board, with the broadcaster free to appoint the majority of its members independent of government, according to plans announced on Thursday.

Posted by: lysias | May 12 2016 19:17 utc | 52

No, Hillary can't win. Only a few insane lesbians have voted for her this time around. The vote count in U.S. elections is entirely fictional. That is exactly why Hillary will be installed as president by the money power boys who want her in and she will quickly establish martial law for them and put the "homeland security" army in the field to take the guns. Then it hits the fan for survival or death. And she will love it all.

Posted by: Tony B. | May 12 2016 19:29 utc | 53
Money quote:

[Trump] has amplified his independent, outsider message in real time, using social media and cable news interviews — and his own celebrity and highly attuned ear for what resonates — to rally voters to his side, using communication strategies similar to those deployed in the Arab Spring uprising or in the attempts by liberals and students to foment a similar revolution in Iran.

“Trump leveraged a perfect storm,” said Steve Case, the founder of AOL, in an email message. “A combo of social media (big following), brand (celebrity figure), creativity (pithy tweets), speed/timeliness (dominating news cycles).”

Mr. Trump is an unlikely spokesman for the grievances of financially struggling, alienated Americans: a high-living Manhattan billionaire who erects skyscrapers for the wealthy and can easily get politicians on the phone. But as a shrewd business tactician, he understood the Republican Party’s customers better than its leaders did and sensed that his brand of populist, pugilistic, anti-establishment politics would meet their needs.

After seething at Washington for so long, hundreds or thousands of miles from the capital, many of these voters now see Mr. Trump as a kind of savior. Even if he does not detail his policies, even if his language strikes them as harsh sometimes, his supporters thrill more to his plain-spoken slogans like “Make America Great Again” than to what they see as the cautious and poll-tested policy speeches of Mr. Ryan and other Washington Republicans.

Posted by: okie farmer | May 12 2016 19:33 utc | 54

Biden as bad or worse than Hillary. Member of the Obysmal, Hillary, Kerry, Nuland/Kagan/Kissinger/Brzezinski camp of Warmongering Zionists.

Biden performs for AIPAC whenever he gets a chance.

"I am a Zionist". - Biden

Posted by: fast freddy | May 12 2016 20:54 utc | 55

A long read- but well worth it... (via nak-cap)
Sorta like the 19th century Russian literature concept of Лишний человек (i.e., superfluous person) - except less educated, but no less redundant... at least in Russia, it ended in a revolution.
What it'd be in the US?

Posted by: GoraDiva | May 12 2016 21:07 utc | 56

My random event generator tells me frequently that:

'Every excess becomes a vice'

Excess behavior = Clinton and her paymasters are overdoing it in a stellar fashion. Trump and his ill gained wealth are a serious anathema for the average John and Jane Does.

Both of these candidates are against the best interests of 'ordinary' Americans and their offspring.

A good friend told me just earlier that she finally thinks that Americans have to be the dumbest people on the planet.

I disagreed respectfully. The American people are not the dumbest people on Earth - they are the most manipulated people on Earth and that's a big difference.

Each moment the Clinton and the Trump proceed, will generate a huge push back on behalf of the majority of Americans. Each moment, it becomes more apparent that the two Emperors are not wearing any clothes.

Absent large scale vote rigging - which is absolutely not beyond the establishment's attempts to maintain exploitation business as usual - the American population will gather behind Sanders. That is not an endorsement of Sanders, but more so the logical consequence of an awakening citizenry.

You may call me a dreamer - but I am not the only one...

Posted by: Helena | May 12 2016 22:29 utc | 57

in re 29 --

A fine bit of tailism, that. That should put the Greens over the top. Will Smith, Selfa or some other cadre be named to the Cabinet?

Posted by: rufus magister | May 13 2016 4:15 utc | 58

@lebretteurfredonnant #23

FDR wasn't a war monger
1933-1940 was the only time in which the USA weren't involved in wars

Posted by: claudio | May 13 2016 7:35 utc | 59

Clinton is like Nixon. She may have found the perfect candidate to run against. She IS hated, and she IS a terrible, tone-deaf candidate, but unless her ego makes her control her campaign, smart advisers will create a fairly hard-hitting fear campaign against The Donald. As others have commented, Trump would be no piece of cake for the bottom 80% ...

b, just so you know, antisemitism at #40, where no spaces clouds up tracking that anti-moonofalabama crap.

Posted by: fairleft | May 13 2016 8:59 utc | 60

Donnie's got religion ...

Trump signals backing for cuts to Social Security, Medicare

His top policy adviser Sam Clovis addressed a Washington DC conference hosted by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a group established by the billionaire former Nixon cabinet member to push for the dismantling of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of cutting the federal budget deficit.

Even attending the conference was something of a signal, given the Peterson group’s identification with entitlement spending cuts. Clovis underscored the message, telling the conference, “I think after the administration’s been in place, then we will start to take a look at all of the programs, including entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.”

As late as a Republican debate in March, Trump claimed that his economic policies, based on protectionism and trade warfare, would make the United States so rich that no changes would be needed in Social Security or Medicare. He also claimed, in keeping with the nostrums of supply-side economics, that his proposed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy would cause economic growth to skyrocket, leading to a huge increase in federal tax revenue that would eliminate the federal budget deficit.

Clovis gave a more cautious undertaking to the Peterson group, which has forecast that Trump-sized tax cuts for the wealthy would produce $10 trillion in deficits, not a surplus. The Trump promise not to cut entitlements was conditional on tax cuts producing record economic growth, he said.

“Right now, we’re not going to touch anything because we can’t predict the growth,” Clovis said. “We have to start taking a look not just at Medicare and Social Security but every program we have out there, because the budgetary discipline that we’ve shown over the last 84 years has been horrible.”

Clovis also told the Wall Street Journal in an interview that Trump would support privatization of the Veterans Administration or its transformation into an insurance plan rather than a direct provider of health care services to veterans. “The VA’s a broken system now,” he said. “We can’t continue down that road.”

Of course he'll just continue say what ever come off the top of his head. There are a lotta people who wanna believe. Will enough people ask enough questions, and will they get answers? Didn't in 2008, did they? But I can't see a majority for Trump. Who knows. Hard to see a majority for Clinton either, isn't it? The difference between them is marginal. I forecast we'll all lose no matter which of these ... or the Burn miester ... first passes the potus post.

This is the proverbial 'perfect storm' for 'non of the above write-ins. We could surely keep either one from garnering 50% of the vote ... maybe come in second our collective selves ... or first, even. If we managed to keep both of them below 50% we'll have accomplished something tangible ...

The change happens first in the minds of the people, and can only be measured later, when they are fully in motion. Such transformations occur when masses of people see themselves as part of a large, newly emergent group. Trump’s followers coalesced around his candidacy to become something more than just a bunch of angry white folks. During the primary process, they got to measure themselves for size, as a group, and were impressed. They started to see their group as a social force – and became one. It’s what humans do at critical junctures in history – including racists.

... 'It’s what humans do at critical junctures in history' – not just racists.

As for the viability of third parties, see Maurice Duverger. I find him convincing, although blues spits on the floor everytime he hears the name mentioned. We have two parties because people en masse feel they cannot take a chance voting for the candidate who appeals to them, because a plurality, not a majority, can elect the winner. Iterated polls till one candidate does achieve a majority solves the problem. Then we can have all the parties we'd like.

Posted by: jfl | May 13 2016 10:25 utc | 61

24;You funny guy.The only way Joe Bitem would be POTUS is if Trumps ex butler shoots Obomba.
Dumb as dirt,and a moron to boot.Another Hell Bitch in drag.

Posted by: dahoit | May 13 2016 13:09 utc | 62

44;James,don't believe MSM descriptions.I have no idea of this guy,but one news outlet? said he would be an economic president,and not a military expansion one,which might mean China bashing(very prevalent lately)is over for the Philippines.
And if true,he will be portrayed badly by the MSM imperialists.

Posted by: dahoit | May 13 2016 13:13 utc | 63

50;Ok,your girlfriend is Jewish,sorry.Jesus Christ,Jewish females are the most out of touch humans on the planet,from Lena Dunham,to Pussy Riot,to Pamela Geller,to Jill Stein to the DNC chairwoman,to Amy Goodman,to Gloria Steinem,a collection of vapid concern trolls interested only in their being male equals instead of being women.And American women like the HB,EW,NP etc are right up there with them as morons.
They fit right in with the Queen of Hell.(HRC)

Posted by: dahoit | May 13 2016 13:26 utc | 64

Nixon?What ever Nixon was,he weren't no stinking Zionist traitor,as the Queen of Hell is.

Posted by: dahoit | May 13 2016 13:31 utc | 65

And I like women,have had no problems with them my whole life,:),(of course my wife would disagree)and am not anti women,just new age women who don't realize that womanhood is supposed to be of nurturing,love and maternity,instead of martial masculinity,and the working life.My wife,instead of retail hell,would love to be a stay at home mom,like our ancestors,and the nuclear family,now its both parents slaving and the kids untethered.The world of Zionist neocapitalism.Thanks for nothing.
Clockwork Orange women.oy.

Posted by: dahoit | May 13 2016 13:38 utc | 66

Voting in the United States isn't about "democracy"—it's about perpetuating the illusion of democracy.

Who makes the decisions in our society?

Who writes public policy?

Years of social engineering has caused people to be deluded on this matter.

The White House and Congress don’t really make the decisions, Wall Street and the Pentagon do.

Who wins the election makes no difference because all politicians must do what the elite want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state.

Elections in the capitalist system do not secure popular control over the state, they do help secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that “the people” control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is.

The illusion of "choice" and "free elections" is very important to the ruling class. They recognize that this pretty illusion makes their job much easier, so they want to preserve it. The rituals of campaigns & elections function to con most of the population into believing that "they're free." Being forced to choose between 2 parties which are united against them, rigged to serve the interests of their oppressors is not "an election" it is a manipulation. People are waking up to that which is why voter turnout is low. People are not apathetic or stupid they very much get that these "representatives" do not represent anyone but the corporate elites.

In today's US, especially at the national level, elections are worse than worthless -- they simply perpetuate illusions & waste time. They are degrading & repulsive exercises in Madison Avenue PR techniques, where "the truth" is off limits from the get-go. Effort should be directed not at participating in this system, but at bringing it down, exposing its corrupt essence, & building genuinely constructive alternatives.

In America, the ovens will not be disguised as showers; they will be marked "Voting Booth."

Posted by: Allen | May 13 2016 13:52 utc | 67

And the U.S. slips further into totalitarianism. Washington Post: Want a security clearance? Feds will now check your Facebook and Twitter first:

The government will start scanning Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media accounts of thousands of federal employees and contractors applying and re-applying for security clearances in a first-ever policy released Friday.

Posted by: lysias | May 13 2016 18:31 utc | 68

@ Kiwicris 36

Maybe. The interviews cited lean GOP camp. However, Fox and CNBC will not go out on a limb to attract libel suits.

I guard against posting to certain sources, not b/c they are deemed not credible – it's too explosive and requires suspension of all things imaginable - as in the 28 pages 9/11 report. There is an article that was written 2 weeks after September 11, 2001 exposing the dirty secrets (Bush-Clinton alliance) cited briefly by Fitts in my post at 1. In fact, she confirms the contents of that article and now, so does IBD below.

Hillary is in deep brown stuff and it ain’t in the piggy's barn. It’s the money, Stupid!

Oh my Oh My, there is so much more on the Clinton Cash.

An IBD's (Investors Business Daily) Editorial titled -
Hillary’s Latest Scandal: She And Bill Siphoned $100 Mil From Mideast Leaders

(Note: Investors Business Daily (IBD). IBD is the credible source for Stock News & Stock Market Analysis, - a daily must go to source for smart money market people.}

[.]Remember, a Hillary Clinton presidency once looked like a sure thing. Now, given the growing possibility that she could be charged for criminal negligence for putting secret material on a private server, or perhaps even be charged with corruption, Clinton has far more serious problems than just getting elected. Her biggest problem may be staying out of prison.

~ ~ ~

Wall Street whistle-blower drops BOMBSHELL about Clinton Foundation

[.]”Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel was making news for uncovering years of accounting fraud at General Electric.

Now he’s turned his attention to the Clinton Foundation, and he’s convinced something similar is going on.[.]
Ortel said he has spent the past 15 months digging into the Clinton Foundation’s public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures. That includes records from the foundation’s many offshoots—including the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiative—as well as its foreign subsidiaries.
According to Ortel’s reports, the contribution disclosures from the Clinton Foundation don’t match up with individual donors’ records. He also argued that the foundation is not in compliance with some state laws regarding fundraising registration, disclosure requirements, and auditing rules.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I echo b. Not Clinton. Do you suppose the FBI and IRS can continue to ignore?

Hillary will need devine intercession to make it to 1600. Unless she is given the David Petraeus slap on the wrist, there is a P in her future and it is not president.
(See link: How David Petraeus, former CIA Director, avoided jail

Ya think, the former CIA Director got only probation? Will Hillary be given only probation and still be sworn in as president?

Posted by: likklemore | May 13 2016 19:50 utc | 69

Oops, my last link to Business Insider failed:

Sorry here it is:

Here's how David Petraeus got off with only a misdemeanour

Um, he avoided jail.

Posted by: likklemore | May 13 2016 19:57 utc | 70

Helena @ 59

Allen @ 70

Both thoughtful, and relevant posts..Kudos! Everyone should read them again.

Posted by: ben | May 13 2016 20:24 utc | 71

Allan @70:

Complaining about the intent and the result is self-defeating.

Understanding how the voting is designed to ensure that an establishment candidate always wins is empowering.

See my comment @39.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 13 2016 20:36 utc | 72

What Napolitano said about the email affair: A Perfect Storm of Legal Misery - LewRockwell

The bad legal news for Hillary Clinton continued to cascade upon her presidential hopes during the past week in what has amounted to a perfect storm of legal misery. Here is what happened.

Last week, Mrs. Clinton’s five closest advisors when she was Secretary of State, four of whom remain close to her and have significant positions in her presidential campaign, were interrogated by the FBI. These interrogations were voluntary, not under oath, and done in the presence of the same legal team which represented all five aides.

The atmosphere was confrontational, as the purpose of the interrogations is to enable federal prosecutors and investigators to determine whether these five are targets or witnesses. Stated differently, the feds need to decide if they should charge any of these folks as part of a plan to commit espionage, or if they will be witnesses on behalf of the government should there be such a prosecution; or witnesses for Mrs. Clinton.

In the same week, a federal judge ordered the same five persons to give videotaped testimony in a civil lawsuit against the State Department which once employed them in order to determine if there was a “conspiracy” — that’s the word used by the judge — in Mrs. Clinton’s office to evade federal transparency laws. Stated differently, the purpose of these interrogations is to seek evidence of an agreement to avoid the Freedom of Information Act requirements of storage and transparency of records, and whether such an agreement, if it existed, was also an agreement to commit espionage — the removal of state secrets from a secure place to a non-secure place.

Also earlier this week, the State Department revealed that it cannot find the emails of Bryan Pagliano for the four years that he was employed there. Who is Bryan Pagliano? He is the former information technology expert, employed by the State Department to problem shoot Mrs. Clinton’s entail issues.

Pagliano was also personally employed by Mrs. Clinton. She paid him $5,000 to migrate her regular State Department email account and her secret State Department email account from their secure State Department servers to her personal, secret, non-secure server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. That was undoubtedly a criminal act. Pagliano either received a promise of non-prosecution or an actual order of immunity from a federal judge. He is now the government’s chief witness against Mrs. Clinton.

It is almost inconceivable that all of his emails have been lost. Surely this will intrigue the FBI, which has reportedly been able to retrieve the emails Mrs. Clinton attempted to wipe from her server.

While all of this has been going on, intelligence community sources have reported about a below the radar screen, yet largely known debate in the Kremlin between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Intelligence Services. They are trying to come to a meeting of the minds to determine whether the Russian government should release some 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that it obtained either by hacking her directly or by hacking into the email of her confidante, Sid Blumenthal.

As if all this wasn’t enough bad news for Mrs. Clinton in one week, the FBI learned last week from the convicted international hacker, who calls himself Guccifer, that he knows how the Russians came to possess Mrs. Clinton’s emails; and it is because she stored, received and sent them from her personal, secret, non-secure server.

Mrs. Clinton has not been confronted publicly and asked for an explanation of her thoughts about the confluence of these events, but she has been asked if the FBI has reached out to her. It may seem counter-intuitive, but in white collar criminal cases, the FBI gives the targets of its investigations an opportunity to come in and explain why the target should not be indicted.

This is treacherous ground for any target, even a smart lawyer like Mrs. Clinton. She does not know what the feds know about her. She faces a damned-if-she-does and damned-if-she-doesn’t choice here.

Any lie and any materially misleading statement — and she is prone to both — made to the FBI can form the basis for an independent criminal charge against her. This is the environment that trapped Martha Stewart. Hence, the standard practice among experienced counsel is to decline interviews by the folks investigating their clients.

But Mrs. Clinton is no ordinary client. She is running for president. She lies frequently. We know this because, when asked if the FBI has reached out to her for an interview, she told reporters that neither she nor her campaign had heard from the FBI; but she couldn’t wait to talk to the agents.

That is a mouthful, and the FBI knows it. First, the FBI does not come calling upon her campaign or even upon her. The Department of Justice prosecutors will call upon her lawyers — and that has already been done, and Mrs. Clinton knows it. So her statements about the FBI not calling her or the campaign were profoundly misleading, and the FBI knows that.

Mrs. Clinton’s folks are preparing for the worst. They have leaked nonsense from “U.S. officials” that the feds have found no intent to commit espionage on the part of Mrs. Clinton. Too bad these officials — political appointees, no doubt — skipped or failed Criminal Law 101. The government need not prove intent for either espionage or for lying to federal agents.

And it prosecutes both crimes very vigorously.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

Posted by: ProPeace | May 13 2016 20:51 utc | 73

in re 69 --

So you like women. Provided they're barefoot, pregnant, and Aryan, it seems.

Posted by: rufus magister | May 13 2016 22:22 utc | 74

US backed coup in Brazil now

New brazil president elect all-men cabinet

New brazil president attacks women

WikiLeaks Reveal Brazil's New Coup President Is 'US Informant'

Posted by: Som | May 14 2016 8:22 utc | 75

@Som, please read this thread title... it about US banana republic, not Brazil's...

h/t to someone on SST, "Dilbert's" blog is pure joy to keep up to date with all Trump's facts and tricks:

Do you remember a few months ago when people were saying Donald Trump didn’t really want to be president? I don’t hear that now. Trump ended that speculation by becoming the presumptive GOP nominee. That’s one way to do it.

I also remember a lot of people calling Trump a “clown” last year. That was before he annihilated sixteen of the best candidates that the Republican party has ever fielded. That doesn’t seem so clownish.

Do you remember all of Trump’s vulgar insults from last year? It turns out that those linguistic kill shots were engineered for persuasion, and A-B tested at live rallies for effectiveness. Today, no one doubts how well those Trump nicknames worked.

Posted by: citizen X | May 14 2016 10:57 utc | 76

Today the Eurovision competetion will go on, and as usual the booing against Russia just like 2014 and 2015.

Posted by: Mandel | May 14 2016 11:17 utc | 77

Sheldon Adelson to contribute 100 million to Trump’s campaign

Adelson told Trump in a private meeting last week that he was willing to spend $100 million for his presidential campaign, two Republicans with direct knowledge of the casino mogul’s commitment, told the New York Times. The report was published on Friday.

The two men met at a hotel in New York and Adelson formally endorsed Trump on Friday. During the meeting, Trump reportedly stressed that he is committed to the security of Israel.

“You may not like Trump’s style or what he says on Twitter, but this country needs strong executive leadership more today than at almost any point in its history,” Adelson wrote.

Sieg Heil! Trump will be the first publicly-acknowledged Israeli owned-and-operated POTUS?

Posted by: jfl | May 14 2016 21:05 utc | 78

@ JFL 81

Not at all surprised. Adelson’s millions thrown in the pot because Trump has embraced Israel. Trump’s “America First “ is a slogan for the sheeple. He did not add ---first “ after our masters.”

Here is how Trump sees it…Netanyahoo is “a very good guy.” Yes, Israel can keep doing all that’s illegal.

Trump: Israel should keep building West Bank settlements

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he's in favor of Israel's controversial construction of new settlements in the West Bank.

"I think Israel, they really have to keep going, they have to keep moving forward," Trump told the Daily Mail in a story published Tuesday. "I don't think there should be a pause.

"You have hundreds and even, I guess, thousands, of missiles being launched into Israel — who would put up with that? Who would stand for it?"

The Obama administration has argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's settlement policies damage the potential for a two-state solution.

Trump said he considers Netanyahu "a very good guy," saying he made a campaign ad for the Israeli leader in 2013 and predicting he'd have a good relationship with him as president.

Posted by: likklemore | May 14 2016 21:39 utc | 79

US third parties are at great disadvantage compared to European third parties. Or compared to the other two US parties. Some disadvantages are outlined here.

Here are a few snippets: "The first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all system, which is used for every election in the USA - federal, state and local - makes life difficult for third parties. For example, Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992 but won no Electoral College votes. This is particularly true of national third parties."

"The way candidates can qualify for 'matching funds' puts third-party candidates at a disadvantage. Major-party candidates qualify by raising at least $5,000 in contributions of $250 or less in at least 20 states. But third-party candidates qualify only by getting 5% of the popular vote. Not only is this a difficult hurdle, but it means that the party can qualify in only the next round of elections. "

"Third parties also tend to miss out on media coverage. Newspapers and television usually ignore them. They cannot afford much of anything in the way of television advertisements. They are generally excluded from the televised presidential debates. "

Posted by: Penelope | May 15 2016 4:53 utc | 80

@81 jfl

Trump will be the first publicly-acknowledged Israeli owned-and-operated POTUS?

Trump or Clinton - same difference, only Clinton has been in bed with the Israeli’s since the days of Slick Willie.

As for an Israeli owned-and-operated POTUS, one needs to look no further than the Clintonite presidency. Slick Willie owed his election success to the Jewish lobby who were intent on derailing Bush’s re-election bid. Bush, after all, had the audacity to threaten to withhold U.S. guarantees of some $10 billion of Israeli debt as leverage in a proposed Arab-Israeli peace conference.

The Bush Decision Point

In May 1991, both Bush and Baker publicly called the settlements an obstacle to peace. In response, under AIPAC’s prodding, Congress began pushing Bush to release the loan guarantees on Israel’s terms, meaning Israel could use the money to build wherever it wished. On September 6th, Bush asked Congress for a 120-day delay before considering the Israeli loan request. AIPAC pushed back, flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists. On September 12th, Bush called a press conference and denounced both Israeli West Bank settlements and the Israel lobby. He told reporters he was “up against some powerful political forces” designed to thwart him., adding that “a thousand lobbyists” were working the Hill, while he was “one lonely guy” on the opposite side. This pushback was initially very effective: rapid polls showed a large national majority in favor of the President and against the Israeli request, and Congress agreed to a delay.

This was the kiss of death for Bush 41. He blamed the Israel lobby at least partially for his defeat. The largely Jewish controlled media played a major role in “the transformation of Bush’s public image from the masterful diplomat …to the out of touch preppy of a year later.”
Bush’s failure to stand up to Jewish power marked the end of any semblance of rationality with regard to U.S. policy vis-à-vis the Mid-East. This lesson, a lesson of power politics, is reverberating in the corridors of Washington to this day. Just ask Hillary.

-Slick Willie opened the doors wide open to dual citizen infiltration of key positions in government. (ex: D. Ross appointment as Middle East envoy >> Israel‘s lawyer)
-He was also the first sitting president to openly prostrate himself at the annual Aipac convention, an event that has now become ritualized.
-The Clinton controlled Democratic party went so far as nominate that blatantly zionist lunatic Joe Lieberman for Vice President on the ticket with Al Gore in the 2000 election.
-Clinton’s notorious last act - the pardon of Marc Rich,(rumoured to have been an Israeli agent) then on the FBI’s most wanted list - “the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and former prime minister Shimon Peres made personal pleas to Clinton on his behalf to secure the controversial pardon.”- Guardian (the money angle was a red herring)
- only scraping the surface

Posted by: pantaraxia | May 15 2016 7:35 utc | 81

@84, paraxia

Yeah, I'm aware of all that. Good you bring it up though. But do contrast the Bush XLI and Trump. The one pumping up the illusion of American independence and Trump ... who'll soon be making a virtue of taking Adelson's 100 mega bucks. He and Clinton XLV will be competing for Israeli dollars and support. Things are going to hell at a much faster pace than they used to be, and to the very bowels of hell, too, not just the outskirts. Not even the pretense of American independence any longer.

Posted by: jfl | May 15 2016 13:17 utc | 82

77;Commie speak.My wife is only half German-American,the other half I-talian.
My two daughters partners are a Jewish man and a black man.My grandchildren are half black,with a half Jewish child on the way.
How about your nuclear family?sheesh.
And I am an American,not an Aryan,as I'm only about?an eighth?Kraut.
The HB says she'll release the UFO files on reaching POTUS.Talk about vapid idiocy.Wait till Trump tears her a new one on that!
And Trump is trying to hide something by not releasing his tax returns.Wait,doesn't the IRS have his records?If he was hiding soething I have a strong feeling Obomba would have them release it.
And as she is the one hiding everything,it reeks of bubbleheaded hypocrisy.

Posted by: dahoit | May 15 2016 14:19 utc | 83

Womens lib;About the worst misdirection in history,where millions of women are now slavers in a system they can't get out of,as now two have to produce for the family,instead of one.
Another example of the absolute fantasy of Zionist Jewish moron females.
It pisses off the Zionist males,critiquing their females,as they rule the roost,why else all the gender confusion?:).

Posted by: dahoit | May 15 2016 14:23 utc | 84

The new Philipinno President;He hates US for CIA bombings in the Philippines back in the 90s?Some American blew his leg off in a hotel,the FBI(CIA)showed up at the hospital and whisked him out of the country.(Of course with the corrupt Phil.government assistance)
Expect demonization.
And yes,I'm sure China likes the change also.

Posted by: dahoit | May 15 2016 14:28 utc | 85

We can expect only worse after the American elections. The two likely contenders for the American presidency are equally intent on “making America great again,” of dominating the world. Since they, on behalf of the ruling elite, offer no rational solutions to the American people for the increasing economic decline and social breakdown that is occurring in the United States, war is their only way out.

Posted by: denk | May 15 2016 16:03 utc | 86

in re 86 --

Glad you spotted the class-conscious rhetoric.

Not to worry. First, if I recall our volkisch theorists, they counted all the the Indo-Europeans as Aryans. Some, like the stereotypically blonde Teutonic types, of course, were thought of better than others. The Reich's "New Order" was putatively pan-European, with any number of the conquered providing volunteers for Waffen-SS divisions like "Wiking" and "Nordland."

But to keep it strictly German, you're still good. Nazis said one-eighth made you a Jew, so I presume an eighth makes you German.

And we'll go barefoot and fascist, then, the Italians having invented the twentieth century's most pernicious ideology. Your Mondoweiss profile says you're a patriot, so perhaps "barefoot and effusively nationalist" is fairer.

Posted by: rufus magister | May 15 2016 23:38 utc | 87

paraxia @84

Very well said!

Bill Clinton Attacked: What about Gaza?

Bill Clinton explains Hillary's policy, defends Israel | Ynet News |

Interesting what Bill said about the Israeli war crimes in Gaza, Egypt's president Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood .... and Hillary's role in stopping the hostilities. LMAO, what a load of bunk!

Posted by: Oui | May 16 2016 7:58 utc | 88

Bernie helped give Stephanie Kelton a voice in Senate budget debates, but Trump is the one who has (at least in some cases) been frank about the nature of money and federal debt, while I don't think I've heard Bernie say anything along these lines:

(Albeit, Trump also says he will balance the budget.)

Posted by: RudyM | May 16 2016 16:44 utc | 89

This election is best served with a truckload of facial tissue. Here are some very disturbing links.,

Canada’s Globe and Mail says:

Brace yourselves: Trump is going to win written by Derek Burney, a former Canada Ambassador to the U.S. 1989-1993 who was involved in negotiating the free-trade agreement..

I repeat it is doubtful Hillary will make it to 1600. There is a “P” in her future and it is not president.
Judicial Watch, the org granted a motion for discovery by a federal court --permission to interrogate Hillary’s top aides over email-gate, has a special section on their website – For continuous update see -

Clinton Foundation Corruption News

The Hill: “Hillary scrutinized arms sale at State”

Motherjones: The list of countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation and what they got in return. These are big bucks. Is it Bribes?

Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
it is said:
"if you don't have a conscience, you can't grow one"
Crooked! Corruption!? Cackles! For the Clintons there is no apt descriptor to be found in any of the languages known on planet earth.

Posted by: likklemore | May 17 2016 2:58 utc | 90

Democratic Party continues its unabashed support for Hillary.

See the comments(!) for a very interesting and important discussion. While some starry-eyed Sanders supporters continue to support him blindly, others are debating:

1) is it possible to change the Democratic Party?

2) who to vote for, given that Bernie is unlikely to win.

IMO, the Democratic Primary was 'rigged' and Bernie was too accepting of this from the beginning. Some rationalize this as his NEEDING the exposure that running as a Democratic would give him. But he has always said that he would support the Democratic nominee (i.e. Hillary) and has been reluctant to attack her like an independent candidate would (compare Trump and Lincoln Chafee).

This is important because IMO Sanders supporters should NOT be swayed by Sanders into supporting Hillary. They should stay true to their beliefs not any particular Democratic Party politician.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | May 17 2016 4:51 utc | 91

The comments to this entry are closed.