Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 20, 2016

U.S. Election Thread 2016-02

Room to bash whatever candidate deserves it ...

Posted by b on May 20, 2016 at 17:48 UTC | Permalink


If Hillary gets elected we will all perish.

Posted by: blues | May 20 2016 17:54 utc | 1

Posted by: blues | May 20, 2016 1:54:39 PM | 1

If Hillary gets elected we will all perish.

Strongly disagrees. Any three liars: Killary, Bernie or Trump we will all perish.

As far as I'm concern Bernie is Oboma2 or Duyba3.

BTW, "b" and "blues" the same owner/moderator of MofA? I'm confuse????

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 20 2016 18:15 utc | 2

If you put Bernie Sanders in the same category as George W. Bush, you've got a screw loose.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 20 2016 18:27 utc | 3

BTW, "b" and "blues" the same owner/moderator of MofA? I'm confuse????
Posted by: Jack Smith | May 20, 2016 2:15:45 PM | 2

No. I've had differences of opinion with each of them and blues and b are definitely not the same person. Totally different argument style. Totally different writing style.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 20 2016 18:35 utc | 4

Greek experiment: The puppet show continues

Posted by: nmb | May 20 2016 18:36 utc | 5

Sorry for 5. Made a mistake. Can I erase it?

Posted by: nmb | May 20 2016 18:40 utc | 6

I have nothing at all to do with the management of this website (fortunately for everyone).

I had a strange personal project back in my hippie days in which I would work my way into many very different groups of people. I was possibly the only white guy to be allowed into Black Panther meetings. (They would rant constantly about how the "white man" was the source of all the troubles of the world.) I would also hang with billionaires on their yachts at sea. For that I needed to wear water tolerant, sticky soft rubber sole, blue canvas deck shoes. I liked them and wore them all the time. So the Panthers nicknamed me "bluesneakers". So for my blog handle I shortened it to "blues" about ten years ago.

Posted by: blues | May 20 2016 18:50 utc | 7

In the category of likely doom of humanity, Sanders wouldn't be speedbumb of resistance to nearing impending disaster. Wheater were talking world WW3, nuclear weapon annihilation or global warming. Sure, he'd less awful than the other 2 evil freaks, but he is so unprincipaled and pathetically cowardly on so many humanity saving issues that I'd comfortably place Sanders into the Doom enabler category.

Posted by: tom | May 20 2016 20:28 utc | 8

Sanders is Neocon Light. Moderate Zionist. He wouldn't lift a finger to change the dynamics in Palestine/Israel. Hillary is a raging hell-bent Neocon Zionist. We don't know what Trump is. (establishment R's are not sure he's sufficiently Zionist).

(Dynamics: Israel crushing Palestine, stealing land, water, oil, olive trees, blocking roads, building settlements, razing houses, shooting children, pissing/defecating in the water wells, turning off the taps, etc.)

Posted by: fast freddy | May 20 2016 20:53 utc | 9


All three are rotten? I agree ... just like ALL of their predecessors, though I will admit that there were a couple (maybe even three) presidents who were less evil than these three.

From my perspective, unless and until, the citizens of this country both realize and admit they are part of the problem, nothing will change. The system has been, and certainly still is, little more than a facade of democracy. It has never been a democracy ... and worse, the reason for that is nothing more than simple greed.

I am not totally hopeless ... perhaps a collapse of the biosphere, or a thermonuclear holocaust, could possibly remove enough Americans (and their fellow traveler capitalists) to create an environment in which mutual respect in economic terms could thrive. Frankly, the thermonuclear scenario with its massive doses of genetic changing radiation just might result in the type of changes necessary to create a kinder, gentler species. Most of the animal world, including predators, don't attempt to greedily dominate. They just eat, and just enough to sustain themselves. Their goal is simple survival and not acquisition.

So, who closest resembles simple survival: Trump, Clinton, Sanders? Simple: none of the above. That leaves lessor-evil-dom ... what a choice!

Posted by: rg the lg | May 20 2016 21:07 utc | 10

May 20, 2016 You cannot make this stuff up ...

"A plane got blown out of the sky," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said at a fundraiser in Lawrenceville, N.J., tonight. "And if anything, if anybody thinks it wasn’t blown out of the sky, you are 100 percent wrong, folks. OK? You're 100 percent wrong."

Trump made the unsubstantiated claim while slamming Hillary Clinton for her apparent reluctance to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism."

source -

Wonder if 'The Donald's' spawn will be aiming sniper rifles and spotting for our artillary in the ME?

Posted by: ALberto | May 20 2016 21:30 utc | 11

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 20, 2016 2:27:22 PM | 3

If you put Bernie Sanders in the same category as George W. Bush, you've got a screw loose.

Sorry, you have said unkind words about me before, if continue I will retaliate. I remain correct, Bernie a clone of Obama. Obama a continuation of Dubya and more cruel than Dubya.

Can we disagree with mutual respect without using unkind words? Call all politicians liars I dun give a shit!

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 20 2016 21:50 utc | 12

Posted by: rg the lg | May 20, 2016 5:07:21 PM | 10

Excellent observation except, who are the lesser evils (president) and they're still evils, Right?

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 20 2016 22:00 utc | 13

Posted by: fast freddy | May 20, 2016 4:53:42 PM | 9

To which you can now add "Israel issues demolition order for EU-funded water tanks in Hebron."
(via Xymphora May 20)

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 20 2016 22:08 utc | 14

#12 bernie policies on domestic issues are not bad but he is george the lesser, obomber, on foreign affairs Loves the f-35

I'll be voting Green as normal.

Posted by: jo6pac | May 20 2016 22:28 utc | 15

I'll be voting Green as normal.

That means the greens haven't been completely subverted yet in your country ;).
Take a look at the german greens, that's probably the future of everyone once they get near the establishment. Pro-War, Pro-Rich, Pro-Nihilism.

Posted by: radiateur | May 20 2016 22:51 utc | 16

Posted by: jo6pac | May 20, 2016 6:28:01 PM | 15

bernie policies on domestic issues are not bad but he is george the lesser, obomber, on foreign affairs Loves the f-35

I am not 100% agreement. Consider this: Dun need a Constitution law professor, Socialist, Libertarian or rocket scientist to know can't have bread and butter on the table for every American if continue to pour billions aids to both Egypt and Israel and more billions to military industrial complex and regime change, Right?

As a Californian wait and see the outcome California's June 7 primary and will vote either Green or... in November.

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 20 2016 23:00 utc | 17

3/1 John McCain as Hilary's running mate.

Posted by: MadMax2 | May 21 2016 0:30 utc | 18

Media pattern of allowing Hillary to get away with lies:

Petty Hillary Clinton in Action, She Shows Her True Colors:

Posted by: Tom Murphy | May 21 2016 1:39 utc | 19

I see JS is still here working hard. BS must scare the hell otta' the folks JS works for.

Enjoy the "election" theater folks..

Posted by: ben | May 21 2016 2:12 utc | 20

Jack Smith @ 13 ...

Lessor evil remains evil. By definition. The issue really is simple: when an lessor evil is defined, what makes them lessor? Generally only rhetoric - such as Obomba has made clear. The real difference between he and McCain was nothing more or less than simple rhetoric. Because of his rhetoric he was able to do more harm than McCain would have. So while the idiotic citizens thought they were voting for the lessor evil, in fact they were voting for the greater evil.

The same thing is evident in the current election: who is worse? Because Clinton might be able to 'get more done' ... reality suggests that perhaps the person least able to do anything may be the best candidate. I suspect that might be Trump with Bernie following a close second.

Posted by: rg the lg | May 21 2016 2:15 utc | 21

I had a strange personal project back in my hippie days in which I would work my way into many very different groups of people

Fascinating, do tell us more of your dobie gillis radicalism?

Posted by: Nana2007 | May 21 2016 2:46 utc | 22

{Quote} Fascinating, do tell us more of your dobie gillis radicalism? {Unquote}

The Dobie Gillis show was an early 60s comedy show.

There was nothing about running out into the D.C. Beltway with cars going 70mph inches around you like I dad back then to escape the police.

Also, my exploration project was not at all easy. Plus I learned a few things that most people would rather not know about. About myself and about the world.

Posted by: blues | May 21 2016 6:23 utc | 23

A witch at the White House , a premiere

Posted by: virgile | May 21 2016 9:27 utc | 24

Keep up the good work, Bernie.

The longer you stay in the race, the greater the chances of Hilary
ending up as burnt toast.

Posted by: chris m | May 21 2016 11:26 utc | 25

Something tells me she'll choose the goofus,Warren,in an all girl team.Watch.
BS says that critiquing our first African American POTUS is an affront.
sheesh,A wanker.

Posted by: dahoit | May 21 2016 14:05 utc | 26

Posted by: radiateur | May 20, 2016 6:51:19 PM | 16

No they haven't and if they do I'll back the Pirate Party, grrrrrrrrrrrrrr;)

JS, I'm in Calif. also.

Posted by: jo6pac | May 21 2016 15:20 utc | 27

Some of you will object only because of the source - still the fact remains that Americans are so brain washed that a reality based comment via hat stokes a violent reaction:

This, IMHO, is precisely what our propaganda system has created ... blind adherence to the myth of America the Great.

Oh well ...

Posted by: rg the lg | May 21 2016 15:27 utc | 28

it's very poor analysis to claim sanders is same as obama or clinton.
their funding, track records, actual proposals and bases of support are substantially different.

sanders is cautious in what he says on foreign policy but qualitatively different from clinton who is proven hawk.

there is significant chance clinton would take the USA to war in syria. that would lead to war with iran and possibly russia. sanders record and statements clearly indicate he will not. he is explicitly against 'regime change' policy. anyone who cannot see the difference in their approaches does not have color vision.

here is short description of bernie in Vallejo California the other day:

Posted by: rick sterling | May 21 2016 15:39 utc | 29

Bernie and Hillary have demonstrated themselves to be more inclined to allow Israel to continue its apartheid brutalization of Palestinians.

Hillary in particular has made horrifying policy decisions which have destroyed Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine. Fomented coups in Honduras, Brazil, Venezuela, etc.

Ironic that Trump is the villain behind the hat story with no such track record.

Posted by: fastfreddy | May 21 2016 16:10 utc | 30

Posted by: jo6pac | May 21, 2016 11:20:10 AM | 27

JS, I'm in Calif. also

radiateur could be right. NeoCon and Neoliberal will do anything to confuse the sheep with fears, lies or slogans. Take for example in 2008 - "Change, Change you can believe in" and Bernie recent slogan. "A Future you can believe in".

jo6pac, go with the Green. Made up my mind who to vote in June 7 primary, but undecide and might go with Green (Jill Stein) in Nov. if CA decide the lesser of two evils.

BTW, my County is on the ball just receive (Sat. May 21. 10:15am local time) Ca official voter information guide and can't wait to cast my vote!

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 21 2016 17:44 utc | 31

Posted by: rg the lg | May 20, 2016 10:15:56 PM | 21

“Lessor evil remains evil. By definition. The issue really is simple: when an lessor evil is defined, what makes them lessor? Generally only rhetoric.....”

That's your view..... Oxford Dictionary: the lesser evil (or the lesser of two evils) The less unpleasant of two undesirable possibilities..

Let say, Mr. X threaten his wife, while Mr. Y may beats his wife.

My assessment they are both evils. One less unpleasant while the other undesirable possibilities

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 21 2016 17:46 utc | 32

Here's a vid 'Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight' that the WP made sure their readers saw last week. The individual who put it together did a good job -

I admire Bernie's fighting spirit and he should in no way leave the arena. Clinton is vulnerable. She is not and will not fire up the base to get out the vote. The contrast b/w her '08 campaign to '16 is remarkable. She had the fighting spirit then and the support of Dem/Indy women as evidenced by the PUMA's who were shocked again and again by the lengths in which the DNC, especially the Rules committee, went out of their way to keep her within striking distance of the nomination. I see no fight in her this time around. Only entitlement. And she feels tired to me.

As for Trump? He reminds me of a chameleon. I'm cutting the guy some slack for now, b/c refreshingly, he is not trying to pretend he is a professional hack. I think his mouth hurts him more than anything, but it doesn't appear to be bothering the conservatives too much, the faux conservatives yes, but not the hardened ones.

The 2016 campaign for me is shaping up to be more about the destruction of the Uni-Party's power structures. Preibus appears to be managing the RNC and Trump the 'outsider' rather well, while also containing, at least for now, the Romney/Kristol/Bush camps. But Wasserman Schultz is blowing it on the D side. Her loyalty to the Clinton entitlement crap has left a huge opening for the Bernie surge to build, forcefully, inside the void she's blindly created. For Van Jones to go on the record this week saying he wished Preibus was his Party's chair, well, that says a lot.

The candidates are the candidates but the Uni-Party structures being forced to boot out the self-serving dynasty's from their leadership ranks is something I am enjoying watching, very much. May the days of the neocons and neoliberals control of the Uni-Party come to its rightful destructive end in 2016.

Posted by: h | May 21 2016 17:59 utc | 33

Wasn't it Charles Bukowski that said, "Warm shit or cold shit, they are all still shit!" That has stuck in my besotted brain for fifty years or so.

Posted by: Jake | May 21 2016 19:08 utc | 34

JS at 32:

True, insofar as examples, but might it not be possible that the threat is more damaging than the reality? Could it be that the beaten wife has merely endured pain, while the threatened wife lives under the constant fear of being beaten?

Granted, both are evil ... but one is a physical situation whilst the other is psychological. Which is actually worse? One the surface of it, a beating seems worse because it has an immediacy of pain. The fear of potential beating may have even more impact than the impact itself. I'm not quite sure which one is worse in the long run. Unless, and until, we know the eventual outcome, I am not convinced that one is truly worse than the other. Both are evil ... which is lessor is hard to distinguish.

Is the fact that we know Killary has a track record of violence against others really worse than the potential of Bernie or Trump? I'm not smart enough to know for sure which will have the most negative long term outcome. What I do know is that Trump does threaten but has no real track record; Bernie is on record for supporting violence. Because of the way AmeriKKKans tend to think, I suspect that any of the three would turn to violence to sustain their credibility in the end.

Yes, amigo mio, I am a cynic. [Cynicism being the hard shell an idealist grows to protect the self from reality.]

Posted by: rg the lg | May 21 2016 19:23 utc | 35

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 21, 2016 1:44:49 PM | 31

I picked up my mail in ballot and voter info Thursday at my PO Box but have had time to read it yet.

Nap time

Posted by: jo6pac | May 21 2016 20:19 utc | 36


It's the Unaparty.

The Fuckin UNAPARTY.

They kill millions. Simply because they are sadists. Not even sociopaths.


(Get strategic Simple Score Voting!)

Posted by: blues | May 21 2016 23:48 utc | 37

Posted by: blues | May 21, 2016 7:48:53 PM | 37

Unaparty.........They kill millions. Simply because they are sadists. Not even sociopaths.


Believe me, even in bone dry California can feel your anger and frustrations.

Yes, we have elected and unelected sadists and murders continue to make our lives difficult. We continue to votes for them, we are sadists and murders too?

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 22 2016 3:42 utc | 38

Bernie staying, forcing a tired Hilary into an uncomfortable space.
Looks to me like she gonna be forced to put her gloves up in defence... Man... Donald is gonna maul her. He's only now hitting his stride, polishing his act, Hilary gonna be too wrecked from a Dem campaign with no moral compass up against the Mr nice guy approach. The total contrast in political opponent will be too much... the Dem campaign will have prepared her zero...

Posted by: MadMax2 | May 22 2016 3:43 utc | 39

Blues @ 37:

Yes, indeed, our leaders are both sociopaths and sadists. I would argue that that is what the AmeriKKKan people actually want. From the very beginning of the European entry into the so-called western hemisphere, sadistic, sociopathic behavior has been the norm, both by the so-called leaders and their followers. The goal has always been to take, and as a population we (that includes me) have wanted ... even when it belonged to somebody else. I will readily concede that a socialist tending form of capitalism would be less vicious so long as it took care of us and not them at the expense of us. The sadistic, sociopathic behavior is based on greed. We really don't care about the 0.0001% having almost everything so long as we have enough scraps to believe we are ok. This attitude about taking care of us stops at the borders of our society whether country, race, ethnicity.

Unless, and until, that mindset changes nothing much will change ... with Killary and Trump it is obvious. If we think about who Bernie speaks for it has nothing to do with anyone except us.

We are NOT a good people: cf- [ ]

Posted by: rg the lg | May 22 2016 3:47 utc | 40

Posted by: MadMax2 | May 21, 2016 11:43:52 PM | 39

Does that mean Bernie now the sole surviving Dem candidate in Nov?
and who will be his VP, Tulsi Gabbard?

Time to figure whom to vote in June 7....

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 22 2016 3:55 utc | 41

On the brighter side, if Killary is selected, amateur poets will have a field day. Think of all the rhymes for Trump: dump, frump, chump, grump, lump ...

Posted by: Bob Jackson | May 22 2016 4:37 utc | 42

This Monday is the DEADLINE to Register in California for Democratic Primary
see video about that and other points:

Posted by: Tom Murphy | May 22 2016 6:53 utc | 43

Hillary Clinton's heart is triangular. Trump's is square. Sanders' is round!

Posted by: Quentin | May 22 2016 9:00 utc | 44

@41 your raising Tulsi Gabbard for leadership in a Sanders administration is interesting. Here's a question, why hasn't Sanders used her? The woman stepped out of the DNC leadership quagmire and endorsed him long ago. I've seen no evidence of her anywhere in his campaign nor on the trail. I don't watch the talking heads so don't know if she's been on any of the news shows speaking on his behalf. I do find it curious that he's not used her and his other surrogates more during this season.

For those interested in 'hacking the vote' here are two articles that may be of interest to you -

Clinton Does Best Where Voting Machines Flunk Hacking Tests: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations -


This 2-Part Series by Hopsicker over at madcow - Election company in NY primary has ‘arm-long’ rap sheet -

The latter piece shows a sordid history of those who run the company tabulating NY's votes that leads back to the 2000 'hanging chads' debacle.

Posted by: h | May 22 2016 13:28 utc | 45

Trump is the first Pres. candidate ever to run on ‘US decline.’

Obama didn’t go there and counted on hopey-changiness and being a ‘black’ man, the incarnation of the super-fab-surprise Crown Prince of the Dems, US is tops - More equal, young, diverse, smart, educated!

Trump: Make America great again! >> the word ‘again.’

Others stumble on with some positive needed changes and adjustements (cheaper college, better health care or loving Jesus and banning abortion, minimum wage, green energy..), as per usual more war or less war for the mo or better war or war against the real adversaries or war whatever. Foreign policy will not change but merely shift -again- its emphasis.

Trump promises to reverse decline by ‘making deals.’ Which means negotiations, compromises and concessions, which he confidently expects to ‘win’ on a kind of cosmic score-card becos heh, biz savvy. He hasn’t a clue about what he is up against, nor about the Deep State. He isn’t wrong (on a pragmatic level) about ‘making deals’, but with whom, for what, how?

Both Sarkozy and Hollande won elections on the ‘stop the decline’ theme. France will be a power again! Neither managed anything of consequence.

Posted by: Noirette | May 22 2016 13:42 utc | 46

Trump;35 % tariff on Mexican goods entering USA.Hoo hah!Whose gonna pay for the wall?

Posted by: dahoit | May 22 2016 15:19 utc | 47

@46 Noirette

Trump is the first Pres. candidate ever to run on ‘US decline.

What about Reagan >>> “Its morning in America” - similar theme.

The U.S. had gone thru a decade of economic malaise - stagflation, etc - double digit inflation culminating with the prime rate @ 21%. Viet Nam hangover. Quintupling of oil prices as a consequence of U.S.BFF Israel’s land grab in 67 war leading to 73 war. Resultant oil embargoes caused stock market crash of 73-74 with investments and job growth dead in the water. Conservation of energy became a major theme for Carter administration.

Yet the U.S. economic malaise of the 70’s, a consequence of the quadrupling of oil price, has never been properly attributed to Israel’s land grab of 67 and concomitant U.S. policy. The rationing of gas and long lineups at gas stations, unemployment, inflation, etc. - courtesy of the Greater Israel project. The costs borne by the American people dwarfed , by orders of magnitude, the totality of financial giveaways that Israel has succeeded in coercing from the U.S..

Posted by: pantaraxia | May 22 2016 16:04 utc | 48

pantaraxia at 48, yes... reagan...still trump more 'renewal' i guess it just struck comp. to sanders, clinton and others...

Posted by: Noirette | May 22 2016 18:06 utc | 49

Calif. adds 1.5 million voters since Jan. 1

Posted by: jo6pac | May 22 2016 21:46 utc | 50

Posted by: jo6pac | May 22, 2016 5:46:45 PM | 50

Thanks, staggering new voters’ registration. Not surprisingly Dem, Latino and millennial generation being the most.

Since spring Dem.’s foot soldiers were around my neighborhood. Knocked at my door - a black kid early twenty after he showed me, his clipboard's freaking Donald Trump with a marked RED cross. I said - GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY PROPERTY and said I will vote for Donald Trump." This is how much I hate the Democratic party.

My observations on the grounds here: Black, Latinos and minorities will vote Hillary, White - mainly lower income for Donald Trump and millennial generation for Bernie. I lived in a poorer neighborhood and most living from paycheck to paycheck some minute to minutes.

It's amazing to note Black unflinching support for Obomo a proven liar and murderer. Mostly or most were clueless what going on in Ukraine, Syria and least of all in Gaza.... They always blame the Repug and never Oboma and the Dem.

jo6pac, our votes matter. We will decide who will be the next freaking president. Go for GREEN Party you are the right track. :-)

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 22 2016 23:21 utc | 51

Sanders backers sue to extend California voter registration

As Bernie Sanders supporters fear their candidate will miss out on crucial votes from independent and crossover voters in California’s June primary, civil rights lawyers filed suit Friday seeking more time for those voters to request a Democratic presidential ballot.....

More than 4.1 million voters in California have registered without a party preference, rising to 23.8 percent of the electorate as of April. Sanders led Clinton by 10 percentage points among independent California voters but trailed Clinton 47 percent to 41 percent overall, according to a Field Poll released in early April......

“Independents trend strongly toward Bernie,” said Simpich, who supports Sanders. “That’s why he lost New York, the independents couldn’t vote.”

This Independent, no party preference an't Bernie supporter and will never vote for him either in the primary or in November. I'm voting against and not for, in this elections cycles.

Posted by: Jack Smith | May 23 2016 0:20 utc | 52

Excerpts from a Counterpunch article by John V. Walsh:

“Only Donald Trump (among the Presidential candidates) has said anything meaningful and critical of US foreign policy.“ (And that includes Bernie Sanders.)

No, that is not Reince Priebus, chair of the RNC, speaking. It is Stephen F. Cohen, Emeritus Professor of Russian History at Princeton and NYU, a contributing editor for The Nation, that most liberal of political journals.

Cohen tells us here that:

Trump’s questions are fundamental and urgent, but instead of engaging them, his opponents (including President Obama) and the media dismiss the issues he raises about foreign policy as ignorant and dangerous. Some even charge that his statements are like “Christmas in the Kremlin” and that he is “the Kremlin’s Candidate”—thereby, further shutting off the debate we so urgently need.

Let me just rattle off the five questions he (Trump) has asked.

(First) why must the United States lead the world everywhere on the globe and play the role of the world’s policeman, now for example, he says, in Ukraine? It’s a question. It’s worth a discussion.

Secondly, he said, NATO was founded 67 years ago to deter the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union ended 25 years ago. What is NATO’s mission? Is it obsolete? Is it fighting terrorism? No, to the last question, it’s not. Should we discuss NATO’s mission?

Thirdly, he asks, why does the United States always pursue regime changes? Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and now it wants a regime change in Syria, Damascus. When the result is, to use Donald Trump’s favorite word, the result is always “disaster.” But it’s a reasonable question.

Fourthly, why do we treat Russia and Putin as an enemy when he should be a partner?

Fifth Trump asks, about nuclear weapons – and this is interesting. You remember he was asked, would he rule out using nuclear weapons – an existential question. He thought for a while and then he said, “No, I take nothing off the table.” And everybody said he wants to use nuclear weapons! In fact, it is the official American nuclear doctrine policy that we do not take first use off the table. We do not have a no first use of nuclear weapons doctrine. So all Trump did was state in his own way what has been official American nuclear policy for, I guess, 40 or 50 years.

…It seems to me that these five questions, which are not being discussed by the other presidential candidates, are essential. ….

Posted by: anonymous | May 23 2016 13:47 utc | 53

The reason we don't have honest conversations about the disastrous results of regime change is that for those who advocate on behalf of regime change, the outcomes have been exactly aligned with expectations. While we little people whose only roles are to either pay for or fight in these invasions are told that we're deposing a despot or fighting terrorism, those in the know understand that the blood and treasure expended in these adventures only serves to destabilize the neighbors of our zionist overlords, effectively paving the way for more territorial expansion through theft.

Those who would oppose these policies learn quickly, and brutally, the errors of their ways. Ask Paul Wellstone how opposing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and demanding a legitimate investigation into 9/11 worked out for him. Ask Pat Tillman how leveraging celebrity status to oppose the Iraq war and to influence the 2004 presidential election worked out for him. Oh right, you can't, because they were both victims of the same criminal cabal.

While few likely see a connection between Jeffrey Epstein and the failure of our political class to service the needs of the electorate, consider that every one of Epstein's properties was surreptitiously wired for video and the guests at his parties were a veritable who's who of the powered elite. The parties were designed to ensnare everyone and anyone in compromising situations, i.e. drug use, extra-marital sex, underage sex, rape, and probably worse. Once caught, those politicians, business leaders, and celebrities are effectively silenced for fear of being exposed for the awful people they truly are.

The important question to ask is who financed Epstein's operation and who has possession of the videos? Les Wexner of Limited Brands gave Epstein his 9-story, 51,000 square foot mansion in Manhattan for $1, so he'd be a good place to start. Then look into the rest of the so-called zionist mega group, and you'll begin to understand what truly organized crime looks like, and also the deleterious effects that true corruption has on the political process.

Until we can clean house and begin to exercise something resembling actual justice in this country, things will only get worse.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | May 23 2016 15:13 utc | 54

48;If the American people were ever leveled with,and told the whole War of Terror is the Israeli security and expansion scheme,at our expense,there would be rioting outside Israeli embassies,and the end of this poisonous relationship.
9-11,who ever did it,was the result of Zions powerful influence on US,and every stupid military exercise in futility.

Posted by: dahoit | May 24 2016 13:52 utc | 55

The MSM keeps touting the rise of right wing govts in Europe,but totally doesn't link to the obvious fascist right wing govt in Israel,that increasingly veers more rightward.

Posted by: dahoit | May 24 2016 13:57 utc | 56

You might want to listen to beginning at 140.

Also if you haven't looked at election fraud. He compares exit polls to Democratic primary results-- BEFORE they corrected the polls to match the Primary vote "counting".

Posted by: Penelope | May 25 2016 21:00 utc | 57

h @ 45, Yeah, I wonder why Bernie didn't use Tulsa. Good question. In case you haven't seen it, here's the text of Trump's foreign policy speech as reprinted by The National Interest. As usual, there really is no good candidate again.

lg the ng, you are as usual consumed w hate for the human race. You're not a cynic, just a misanthrope. You are so consumed w hate for human beings that you are determined to infect the unwary w your brand of injustice. To seek to paint all people, or all Americans w the evil committed by some only marks you as a person dead to justice.

FYI, animals are capable neither of morality nor immorality. That doesn't make them morally superior to human beings-- just animals.

Posted by: Penelope | May 28 2016 23:57 utc | 58

The comments to this entry are closed.