https://imgur.com/LnUChXD

Posted by: librul | Oct 19 2019 13:56 utc | 1

There's a special place in hell for Hillary Clinton and women that support her.

Posted by: Realist | Oct 19 2019 13:58 utc | 2

the inevitable and ongoing collapse of the us financial empire gathers speed. obama can cynically smile as it held together, more or less, through his regency. trump is now guiding the titanic. sensible politicians will remain calm, hoping to gain power after dust cloud clears, which may never happen. the nice thing about popcorn is that it's cheap enough to consume even after we bottom out.

Posted by: bolasete | Oct 19 2019 14:02 utc | 3

Hillary Clinton looks like a cadaver that's escaped from the mortuary. Her stupid comments are a testament to the sheer idiocy of the Democratic voters who will actually hang on her every word and really believe what this satanic goat says.

Posted by: john wilson | Oct 19 2019 14:05 utc | 4

Hillary would never say these things. We need to figure out how the Russians hacked the interview.

Posted by: Fly | Oct 19 2019 14:14 utc | 5

Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.

Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than anyone else in history.

I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfuly - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.

But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).

Posted by: Brendan | Oct 19 2019 14:14 utc | 6

The criminal person cannot prevail against her own character and reputation.

I say this because I visit garage sales and stand in ques listening. The consensus about the "lady"?

Bon mots such as "She has a "suicide" problem...". A nearby motorcycle store sells urinal mats with her image on them... And many speak of her self-confessed crimes - and she is associated with the FF of "911" - and suspected widely of treason....
thus>
NFW is she gunna win any kinna 'lection...unless the count is rigged, which it probably will be, since electro-vote is obviously designed to be manipulated.

Withal, if she is anointed in office she'll rule by violence, or not at all.

Whaddafreakshow.

I continue to bear curiosity about her mental and physical state...

If there is any putative prez-material as open to blackmail by foreign agents as the "lady" is, I'd like to know...

Posted by: Walter | Oct 19 2019 14:16 utc | 7

Herself has shown her true colors with this attack on Gabbard (and by extension, anyone who does not worship her). She's mean and vindictive, with way too much money and power. Enough, go away.

Posted by: Joanne Murray | Oct 19 2019 14:20 utc | 8

Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !!

Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race.

Is Tulsi working for Hillary?

Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts available but they chose this one.

Gambits everywhere !

Posted by: librul | Oct 19 2019 14:29 utc | 9

All the Trump ass-kissers are going nuts over this. Skipping over the fact that Clinton was never in a position to shaft anybody but the Honduran people (and she would have been fired if she didn't support a right wing coup,) this is not one bit crazier than the insistence that Clinton is a traitor for Benghazi, emails and Clinton Ca$h. The wingnuts have dished simple-minded BS like this for twenty years, if they can't take some of it back they go back to their mommies.

It is of course absolutely true that Gabbard is not a Russian asset, any more than Bill was a Zionist asset run by Jeffrey Epstein.

But for the record, everyone is reminded that Clinton beat Trump in the actual election, not the archaic stupid-from-the-start Electoral College. That's why only assholes who think winning is everything, no matter how much of a fluke and how much it relied on technicalities, like to tell themselves Clinton was a loser and therefore rave about how she lost.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Oct 19 2019 14:41 utc | 10

"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"

This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.

As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered, I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.

It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 14:42 utc | 11

Trump should have replaced John Bolton with Tulsi. Come the election, Trump should Dump Mike Pence and have Tulsi as his running mate. A bit of compromise by both of them and they would have a dream team and a winning ticket.

Posted by: john wilson | Oct 19 2019 14:43 utc | 12

The Clinton delusional ranting probably needs to be looked at in the light of this.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/10/18/tulsi-nails-national-tv-us-regime-change-wars/
"It didn’t come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:

“Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011… along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheer-leading this regime-change war.”

The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing the government in Damascus."

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 19 2019 14:48 utc | 13

Jim Fetzer loss to Lenny Pozner in the latter's civil suit for slander, has just mad it much easier to sue HRC for same.

Posted by: Joetv | Oct 19 2019 14:49 utc | 14

@ steven t johnson | Oct 19 2019 14:41 utc | 10

Do not assume false a-priori claims. The 2016 election count did not match reality - in electronic machine H "won" lots more than Clown-man, and in less hackable paper votes she lost...

The elections are rigged. Nothing new.

As to the electoral college - this is US Constitutional law since the ratification of USC. Dismissing the constitutional law is fine for foreigners...but office holders and cops and soldiers (and I) have swore to defend it - since we're Americans...I am sorry you don't like the Law...

Posted by: Walter | Oct 19 2019 14:54 utc | 15

Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though. Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win). If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll come gunning for you...

Posted by: paul | Oct 19 2019 14:58 utc | 16

Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."

Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 19 2019 15:04 utc | 17

BEAUTIFUL!
What better promotion could Tulsi ever get??
I can believe it: An election between Trump and Bernie + Tulsi as VP.
NO deep state asset in a general election.
That would be historic!

My try at one of those 4D-chess conspiracy BS: Killary is a Kremlin asset, to make the rot in the US deep state visible to all Amercians, bringing down the imperial war machine.
You know, QAnan told me that.. ;)

Seriously: I think we are all indebted to Hillary. Her stupidity is our own biggest asset.

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Oct 19 2019 15:11 utc | 18

The electoral college is neither archaic nor unfair. We were and are a union of States. The electoral college prevented the Executive office from being dominated by voters from heavily populated urban centers at the expense of the rural population. It is more relevant today than ever as the country is even more divided in disposition and ideology. If it were abolished, most of America would be effectively disenfranchised in Presidential elections as California, New York and a handful of other highly urbanized and ultra-liberal population centers would always carry the day. There would be no need to vote anymore. Maybe that is the idea......

Posted by: nemo | Oct 19 2019 15:11 utc | 19

Hillary Clinton can’t be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.

What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the left is to attack the establishment that’s in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its “enemies” and unfettered capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.

The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.

Posted by: Ludwig | Oct 19 2019 15:19 utc | 20

b's right. It's time to dump Killary. It's time to become a Dummycrat and tell them what's what. So I found their official web site and clicked on "Take Action". Yes, action is what I want to take. Where do I join? I can be a volunteer. I can apply for a party job. I can donate money. I can add my email to a list.

But where do I sign up to be a member? I want to affect the Party. I want to change the policies. Surprise, surprise, there is no option for peons to actually participate beyond donating cash and marking a ballot.

It's very strange to think that I could become "a card-carrying member of the Communist Party" (as they used to say when I was young) but apparently there is no such thing as "a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party".

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 15:24 utc | 21

Hillary has spent the past two years lurking, never really out of sight like most failed candidates. She manages to find a way to keep herself 'relevant,' most recently with a tour promoting a book designed to give her and Chelsea a heroic aura.

IMO she's praying for a deadlocked convention that would anoint her as the 2020 candidate by acclamation...an outcome that could only rival Trump in grotesqueness and put an exclamation point on the undeniable end of American 'democracy.'

Hopefully her conspiratorial paranoia and Joe McCarthy style attacks will prove to all that she is unfit to serve, allowing those not simply blinded by ambition to serve the American people.

I wish she would just go away.

Posted by: JohnH | Oct 19 2019 15:24 utc | 22

The irony is Hillary Clinton didn't mention Tulsi Gabbard by name. There are also other women in the Democratic candidates, so I just wonder how did Tulsi know Hillary was talking about her? We can all assume HRC was referring to Tulsi Gabbard, but it would've been better for Congresswoman Gabbard to wait and let HRC expose herself.

Second, Congresswoman Gabbard's anti regime change crusade is very selective. She is a Hindu convert and fully supports the Indian Hindu extremist Prime Minister and his brutal crackdown and religiously motivated campaign against Kashmiri people.

And while she opposes the regime change attempt against President Assad of Syria, she never mentions the genocide that he, his Iranian allies, and Russian air force committed against the Sunni population in Syria.

So while she is correct to condemn Hillary Clinton's huge appetite for regime change against any country that stands on the way against Greater Israel, she is also pro Assad, pro Iran, Pro India, and pro Russian; she is, in a sense, very conflicted about her anti regime stands.

Posted by: Xariif Man is Back a | Oct 19 2019 15:25 utc | 23

Okay, let's recap:

1) Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset (Clinton).
2) Jill Stein is a Russian asset (Clinton).
3) Donald Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987 (Intelligencer).
4) Rand Paul is "working for Vladimir Putin" (McCain, Greg Olear).
5) Bernie Sanders is "just a tool" to the Russians (The Washington Post).

I'm sure Bernie will turn from "just a tool" into "an asset" in no time if his poll numbers become too high. After all, nobody forgot his fraternizing with the enemy in a sauna in USSR!

Posted by: S | Oct 19 2019 15:33 utc | 24

Trump said that his phone call with Zelinsky was 'perfect'. Could 'perfect', in this case have a double meaning?

Was Trump's call a set-up to bait his enemies into going for impeachment?

The benefits for Trump of such a scheme are obvious.
- Give the democrats enough rope to hang themselves, and destroy any chance they had in 2020.
- Provide the perfect forum, a Senate impeachment trial watched by the entire country and world, to expose all of the evidence that Barr and Durham are digging up in their investigations on Russia-gate, etc., and deal a fatal blow to the deep state.
- Finish with the impeachment threat once and for all, and provide Trump with a clear road in his second term.

Was the 'perfect' phone call a part of Trump's plan from the start?

Posted by: dh-mtl | Oct 19 2019 15:36 utc | 25

And so soon after the Weinstein and Epstein scandals, use of the term "groomed" is a disgusting, degrading word to use against a woman.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Oct 19 2019 15:38 utc | 26

It's always amusing to see Clintonoid lash out irrationally. The nut job old woman showed her true colors as demented old people are prone to do. I had a grandmother who had a similar bout in her old age, but instead of Russian assets she railed against people that ate millet. Imagine if this decrepit old thing had been in charge of our country now?

Posted by: Mike Wallens | Oct 19 2019 15:47 utc | 27

@Xariif Man is Back a:

And while she opposes the regime change attempt against President Assad of Syria, she never mentions the genocide that he, his Iranian allies, and Russian air force committed against the Sunni population in Syria.

There was no genocide of Sunnis in Syria. The "genocide" lie is pushed by the West, Turkey, and Gulf states to cover up their role in engineering the Syrian "Civil War" (= an invasion by international takfiris funded and armed by them).

The real genocide of Sunnis was committed by the U.S. and its vassals in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: S | Oct 19 2019 15:55 utc | 28

In Syria, Sunnis were three-quarters of the population, controlled the economy, and constituted most of the soldiers in the SAA.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 19 2019 16:04 utc | 29

Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party.
Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 19 2019 16:08 utc | 30

this mccartheyism 2 is really tiring... it is amazing how this snake oil is so easily accepted by the american people..are they really that stupid and easily duped?

i like tulsi.. i a democratic country, she would be getting a lot more traction here.. but it is a plutocratic one where money calls the shots..

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2019 16:18 utc | 31

Bravo for Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein! Their comments about Hillary Clinton are like a sudden breath of fresh air in a room filled with the choking stench of ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and hypocrisy that passes for foreign policy thinking in the US of A. In the past I have commented in the MoA about the Clintons, calling both Bill and Hillary corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. In a city (Washington DC) where corruption, rank opportunism and lust for power are bywords, the Clintons can add new chapters to Machiavelli's 'The Prince.' If Hillary Clinton has any sense and decency at all (don't hold your breath), she will crawl back under the rock from where she came. But don't count on it!

Posted by: GeorgeV | Oct 19 2019 16:26 utc | 32

Hillary Clinton's historical change from a Goldwater Girl in 1968 to an anti-war advocate is bull. After volunteering for Eugene McCarthy's campaign, which was to gain enough votes to keep Robert Kennedy from the nomination, she went to the Republican National Convention which nominated Nixon. After that she worked during the summer as an intern for the Republican congressmen and wrote a speech about Vietnam for then-Rep. Melvin Laird. Six months later Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense and bombing civilians in Vietnam.

Her path to power has a lot of other discrepancies, as does her eventual husband's. Since Bill had been suspected of being a CIA asset by his classmates at Oxford, it would not surprise me that this was an arranged marriage in Langley, not a romance that happened in a cafeteria at Yale. The Clinton eventually took the reins of the Democratic Party and have handed it over to the CIA and its owners.

Posted by: Bob In Portland | Oct 19 2019 16:32 utc | 33

Thank you, Fly; it is so good to laugh. What few opportunities we have had to do so these past months. Yes, it is SO true; she would never, never say such things! Or...now I am wondering, did she not pass on state secrets in plain sight of everyone, when she handed over that big red button? How many hidden thumb drives do you suppose THAT contained? The Russians are so good at spying - she could have been even then a substitute Hillary... or a robot!

I think b is onto something big here. Notice his wording -- "suspend". But I would caution that weaponry can be hidden in unexpected places, and that could be the trap.

You can't be too careful. Best wait till her battery runs down.

Posted by: juliania | Oct 19 2019 16:34 utc | 34

Western elites have created a sham democracy that works very well for them. In particular, control of the US Presidency is crucial to governing the Empire and it is highly likely that a democratic choice is allowed.

It is foolish to think that a "populist outsider" can seize the office. Obama and Trump have predictably worked for the establishment while working diligently to con us into thinking otherwise.

It's sad to see people ignore this because focusing on scam elections saps our energy for creating a more democratic and just system. We should be forming Movements (like the Yellow Vests) and demanding direct democracy.

Hillary's attack on Tulsi is just another episode of the stage-managed duopoly show.

Biden has been boosted by Trump's attack on him.

Tulsi has been boosted by Hillary's attack on her.

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

AS much as people cheer Tulsi's response, the fact is Hillary is not in the race; former VP Biden is. But Tulsi has never taken the fight to Joe Biden who was at the center of all the "regime-change wars" which is Tulsi's signature issue? She only attacks Biden's opponents (Kamala Harris and Warren).

It's not crazy to think that Tulsi might have been selected by the Democratic Party 'Powers That Be' to be Biden's VP. She 'balances' the ticket by appealing to voters in every way that Biden's white male warmongering offends them. This, despite the fact that as an anti-war candidate, Tulsi sucks. She's neither anti-war nor anti-Empire. She's simply against wars that USA fails to win. That's why she's still a member of the military.

Lets be real, no US President or politician is EVER a proponent of war - they always talk of peace. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has declared that he's against stupid wars in the Middle East (yet he's "locked and loaded" for war with Iran). Every democratic candidate would gladly proclaim their love for peace ... and twice on Sunday.

Tulsi is not an alternative to an anti-war Movement. But 'Democracy Works!' propagandists promote her as such.

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

It's surprising how many people - even on "alternative media" - LOVE the duopoly show. They prefer the entertainment to a deeper understanding:

Ellen's 'forgive and forget' friendship with Bush is the new "enough with the emails". American unity and Party unity is touted when the Deep State wants to protect its untouchable political operatives.

Biggest surprise of the latest US Democratic debate?

[When asked to name an unusual friendship they have (like Ellen's with GW Bush)] THREE of the 12 candidates cite John McCain...

> Amy Klobuchar: recounted a touching personal story to illustrate their close connection;

> Bernie Sanders: fondly recalls working with him on vet legislation;

> Joe Biden: proud of his association with this great American and his 'can do' spirit.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2019 16:36 utc | 35

My take is that Hillary Clinton herself is "a Russian asset". "The Russians" have "chosen" her (and the Donald as well, of course... -- never criticize mad people's theories to their face-- and Tulsi as well, while you're at it... Three's a crowd? Let's add up Jill Stein... Hey... they left out Bernie...) to undermine definitely the US military-indutrial complex and wake up American citizens about the harebrained "policies" of the leaders of the two-pronged national security permanent duopoly party which has been leading their destiny now (and destroying their country, and huge chunks of the world) for about the last seven decades following its creation under Harry Truman (the guy who wrote the lyrics of the famous world hit ballad "McCarthyism in the USA").
In fact, the strategy could be Russian. Only the real Russians don't play with fire and the possibility of a nuclear war. They're the grown-ups in the room. That's why their strategy would rather be to open the American citizens' eyes about the real delirious powers who rule their country to their loss. So they can do something about it while there is still a modicum of hope. QED. Ask Luke Harding, the famous NATO choir boy who wrote about... a collusion. The opposite of what he tells you is always the correct answer. And if he won't respond... Well, then you'll definitely have to use your own brains.

Posted by: Red Corvair | Oct 19 2019 16:39 utc | 36

Correction @37: highly unlikely

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2019 16:41 utc | 37

Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House.

Wouldn't it be better for the Democratic Party to keep Clinton and expel everybody else? After all, the Democratic Party is seriously damaged goods, it is unrepairable. Better to start again from scratch, and what better way than to expel everybody?

Interesting that Clinton accuses Gabbard of being set up to run as a third party - which is the only way she could ever run post primaries since the DNC is set up to eliminate her, just like Sanders in 2016 - I wonder whether this accusation would assist Gabbard in doing exactly that?

Posted by: BM | Oct 19 2019 16:55 utc | 38

"But the Democratic establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead."

This indeed is the litmus of where we stand today, given the profound disordering the status quo has received at the hands of Trump.

With the Quigleyan/Uniparty being assailed like never before, the duotone curtain becomes a diversionary affectation it can ill-afford. Mitt Romney is the proverbial gray suit. He has neither a contrarian bone nor a courageous impulse in his entire body. So it's been very out of character for him to be manning the Get Trump vanguard within the Republican Party, and from so early on. This would only happen if he'd been assured a path will be cleared for him.

Warren and Sanders are odious wealth taxers. Biden is a dead man walking. Clinton may have burnt her final bridge with the Gabbard flap. I've always felt she'd enter the race. However this is such an unnecessary and unhinged outburst, it essentially curtails that prospect. Goldman Sachs needs a candidate. Bloomberg? Low probability despite the recent noises. Without Wall Street money, DNC perqs evaporate. As the Bible says, the poor will always be with us, just not necessarily with formal party representation.

The DNC's 'best candidate' going forward is Romney. That is, it behooves them effectively to sit out 2020. Wall Street is acclimating to the Trump trade reset. So defection to a Republican candidate, something many of them have been intimating for months, is not out of the question.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/18/wall-street-sees-the-light-of-domestic-reindustrialization/?fbclid=IwAR1MRAJE-to2gEPNIXwefbbyVmuRdqz4b7Kxr4d_cOZ5FI5HDDFMY-rJmVg

Posted by: FSD | Oct 19 2019 16:58 utc | 39

It's nice that Hillary is showing her true colours yet again and that Tusi is calling her out. We've all been hearing the rumors that Hillary is planning a comeback for the 2020 election and it looks like at the very least Hillary wants a veto over who can run as a Democrat and possibly she is planning a miraculous return to politics to "save" DNC from the current empty suits who are currently leading the polls.

I have to admit I was originally quite confused why Hillary would do something so stupid as publicly calling Tusi and Stein Russian agents but having thought on it. Hillary has been a major player in US politics for the last 30 years, a period which has seen the American people get poorer and poorer, Hillary can't accept that the policies she helps develop and implement over her entire career have failed so utterly for the people and as a result have lost popular support. These policies were good for her and her cronies, but not the American people, so rather than admit that her policies, her legacies were bad. She's accusing anyone who opposes her policies as being a traitor to the nation. First it was Bernie, then Trump, then Stein and now Tusi, who will it be tomorrow? Hillary has shown that once one drinks from the well of Russian gate hysteria, they will comeback to it, as it is a convenient tool for avoiding reality

Posted by: Kadath | Oct 19 2019 16:58 utc | 40

Xariif Man is Back a @23

Tulsi Gabbard Is a Rising Progressive Star, Despite Her Support for Hindu Nationalists

India's geopolitical importance is difficult to overstate. US establishment would almost certainly like to cultivate high-level ties to India.

It's reasonable to assume that Tulsi's trajectory is as follows:

Presidential Candidate ==> VP Candidate (Biden-Tulsi) ==> Senator

We're not suppose to think like a Deep Stater playing geopolitical chess. We are only supposed to react to the latest headline.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2019 17:02 utc | 41

and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate

Is the purpose of that comment to bait Gabbard to deny that she would run as a third party or independent?

Posted by: BM | Oct 19 2019 17:03 utc | 42

I think Mrs. Clinton’s current public statements are mostly part of the marketing strategy for her and her coauthor’s new book. Tweets, interviews, and appearances help book sales. Are politics also involved? Of course, but business comes first.

Posted by: Tim | Oct 19 2019 17:05 utc | 43

Thanks b for bringing this to the front page from yesterday's thread! In case barflies missed it, yesterday I linked to this timely essay by Caitlin Johnstone, "Truth Is A Kremlin Talking Point," that anticipated HRC's screed.

I also see Peter AU 1 highlighted Cunningham's Strategic Culture essay I linked to yesterday and highly suggest it be read as well.

Bob in Portland @34 provides some little known HRC history that points to the ultimate backers of the DNC--CIA and Current Oligarchy. I should also note that the Common Dreams website went out of its way to try and not make Gabbard the center of HRC's smear, promoting Stein instead, which shows it's still tied to the DNC as a source of funding.

I also note that after trending at the top of Twitter most of yesterday, #Tulsi is no longer even on that list, which speaks to me of deliberate manipulation by Twitter management, although there is a new #IamTulsi listing.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 19 2019 17:06 utc | 44

Thanks for the Streisand Effect wisecrack, b.
I assumed it was a reflection of the fact that Barbra's version of Send In The Clowns is many people's favourite. But the "official" definition is better than that. And very Hillary-ish.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 19 2019 17:09 utc | 45

Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House.

But...but...but...Hillary Clinton OWNS the DNC.

Do a DuckDuckGo search on:
Donna Brazile Hillary owns DNC

and see what comes up.

For example:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders

So the question that has to be asked, when did, IF EVER, Hillary Clinton's ownership of the DNC end?

By the way, my post @1 references Onward Together a political action group that is designed to $leach$ and absorb
(like from the Steve McQueen movie - The Blob ) emerging progressive political groups into a Hillary controlled entity.

Greedy, greedy, greedy Hillary Blob Clinton.

Posted by: librul | Oct 19 2019 17:13 utc | 46

The Hildabeast actually said this? How stupid can she be? Is she high? I mean, she's gotta be on drugs. Either that, or she's just bat-shit crazy.

Trump and his people would chant "Lock Her Up", presumably meaning in jail. Actually, never mind suspending her from the Democratic Party; someone needs to call the men in white coats to haul her away and "Lock Her Up" in an insane asylum for the rest of her miserable days.

I'm wondering when the November '20 election rolls around, how many Stein voters, realizing she can't win will vote for Trump, just to stick it to the Hildabeast.

@Johnson #10:

Like it or not, the Electoral College is directly provided for in the Constitution. If you want to get rid of it, you will have to amend the Constitution. To do this, you need to get the legislatures of three-quarters of the states (38) to approve this. There's no way this will happen, as there are altogether too many of the smaller population states that would lose influence were this to pass so they will never vote for this. The Electoral College is here to stay, so just get over it and spare us all the bleat.

@Trailer-Trash @21

To get involved in actual Party policy-making, I think you would have to start by running for your local (county-wide) Democratic Central Committee (DCC). If you are a registered Democrat, your ballot will have a section listing the candidates for this. I would suggest attending a meeting of your local DCC (they are open to anyone registered in the Party) to get the details on how to become a candidate.

Antoinetta III

Posted by: Antoinetta III | Oct 19 2019 17:17 utc | 47

Well at least Bernie is a commie.
He should be Putin's favorite.

Hillary is the best thing that has happened for Tulsi.
Please keep her talking.

It's interesting to see how Tulsi and Trumps comments are aligned.
Trump has gone further, noting that these wars are not only based on lies and harming people but also (btw) bankrupting the country. When Tulsi is rejected by the dummmies, Trump should invite her to debate. Would be a hoot.

Posted by: jared | Oct 19 2019 17:23 utc | 48

steven t johnson 10 .... “Clinton beat Trump in the actual election”

I am no Trump fan but which team wins in a soccer match? Team A scores 1 goal and Team B none. But Team B has 10 corners and Team A only 1. Of course, Team A because that’s the agreed upon rule. Both Hitlery and Drumpf went to the match with agreed upon rules. Therefore, Drumpf won - no if’s and but’s.

Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Oct 19 2019 17:28 utc | 49

Antoinetta III said, "To get involved in actual Party policy-making, I think you would have to start by..."

Thank you for illustrating my point, which is, the entire process is deliberately opaque and the details are not easy to find.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 17:28 utc | 50

I can't agree that the Dems should suspend Hillary. I want her Front & Centre of the Dem campaign until Election Day, and Trump's 2nd term.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 19 2019 17:33 utc | 51

Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton is a war criminal and still alive. Her actions are in support of her staying out of jail

The facade of democracy is falling in the US just like the facade of freedom is falling in Syria and Hong Kong

And both freedom and democracy are dog whistle covers for having FAITH in the God of Mammon cult of those that own global private finance.

Traitors to humanity like Hillary are doing God's work, don't you know.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 19 2019 17:40 utc | 52

Hillary is trying to marginalize Tulsi as fringe.
Tulsi had approx 65% as winner of last debate on drudge poll - seems she is popular with swing voters. We know the mainstream polls are inaccurate and likely rigged.
Like Trump with the repubs, she would get only limp support from her party.
We need to stuff Pence in a closet and have her join with Trump.
Then it's Gabbard / Paul.

Posted by: jared | Oct 19 2019 17:41 utc | 53

...grooming her to be the third party candidate

Hmm.

Can there be only one?

Posted by: Charles R | Oct 19 2019 17:41 utc | 54

With all due respect, b, if you think that Elizabeth Warren is a "phony Clinton copy," then you do not know much about Warren or the American political scene. You would be better served by avoiding commenting on U.S. domestic politics until you become better informed. And I say this as a Sanders lover, a Clinton hater and a big fan of MoA.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 19 2019 17:42 utc | 55

It may not be Gabbard's style, but she has at the moment the spotlight to shine on Clinton's own ties to Russia, to the approval of the Uranium One deal (on the watch of upright paladin Robert Mueller) while she was Sec State, the massive donation to the Clinton Foundation, then the $500,000 USD speaking fee in Moscow a short time later.

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Oct 19 2019 17:46 utc | 56

@4 John Wilson - Please don't insult satanic goats like that.

Posted by: roza shanina | Oct 19 2019 18:07 utc | 57

Yawn.

Meanwhile back in the real world of Groupthink Dementia, Brexit (AKA selling out Britain to the US once and for all under the cover of "national sovereignty" and even yuck-yuck-yuck, "incipient socialism"!??!! by some delusionals) fell apart today...all over again.

Was this nothingburger meme fomented by and about nothingburgers designed merely as a cover up for yet another Brexit meme fail? [conspiratardacy alert]

Posted by: donkeytale | Oct 19 2019 18:08 utc | 58

@ steven t johnson | Oct 19 2019 14:41 utc | 10

“Clinton was never in a position to shaft anybody but the Honduran people (and she would have been fired if she didn't support a right wing coup,)”

I'm sure that the tens of thousands of innocent civilians slaughtered in her total destruction of Libya would have a different viewpoint on that. So too the people of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine, along with the hundreds of thousands in Syria whose slaughter she cheered for as she protected the US-armed head-choppers and egged on the US military to go to war with Russia.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Oct 19 2019 18:14 utc | 59

Stein is so smart. I've never regretted giving her and the Green party some money back in 2016.

Dr. Jill Stein - "HRC's rant is exhibit A for how the establishment is using the new Cold War to crack down on dissent & feed the war machine. Instead of addressing the crises working people face, they're painting progressives as the enemy. It's as if they're trying to lose to Trump again."

I totally agree with her and Gabbard - smart as a whip, both of them.

I've just seen, once again, so called liberal democrats attacking Stein because she attended a dinner party in Moscow years ago in which Putin came and sat at the table for some 3-5 minutes. I guess that would make anyone a russian bot by these despicable new cold war mccarthyite standards!

by pursing this line of attack, it's as if the Clintons and the Elites behind them have a death wish for their party, and want to re-elect that dangerous demagogue and climate change denying lunatic, donald trump.

It's time to totally starve the US war machine before it destroys the whole world, by accident or by design

Posted by: michaelj72 | Oct 19 2019 18:15 utc | 60

@ Rob 57
In any case, as far as Warren goes, she is more and more associated to Hillary in people's mind.
Here is the latest example about Warren, given by someone who "would be better served by avoiding commenting on U.S. domestic politics" (to use your own phrase), the self-avowed jagoff comedian Jimmy Dore, in his latest show:
Clinton Consultant Attacks Jimmy Dore For Exposing Warren Lying, Jimmy Dore Show, Oct. 19, 2019 (148K viewers today till now):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEfzE6qLmS4

Posted by: Red Corvair | Oct 19 2019 18:16 utc | 61

@ Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 14:42 utc | 11

”It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates.”

Political parties did run their own primary elections until complaints about the Democratic party's so-called “white primaries” in the South brought about a 1944 Supreme Court decision outlawing the practice, with the eventual result of handing the primary election process over to the states.

Learn all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_primaries

Posted by: AntiSpin | Oct 19 2019 18:25 utc | 62

Another important Saturday event denied a barfly salute

The more obvious explanation is that Ocasio-Cortez wants to keep the socialist flame burning. Sanders is 78 years old and is in the twilight of his career. If the socialist movement that he has built is going to last, the torch must be passed. Ingraham may well be correct that Ocasio-Cortez wants to take that torch and eventually run for president herself. She would be just barely constitutionally eligible when she turns 35 in 2024. But her Sanders endorsement signals what kind of presidential campaign that would be—a direct descendant of the Sanders efforts that have put building a durable socialist movement in America above short-term electoral considerations.

That doesn’t mean Ocasio-Cortez will use the socialist torch to burn down the Democratic Party. She has said she will “support whoever the Democratic nominee is,” even if it’s Joe Biden, whom she politely criticized as someone who “does not particularly animate me.”

She told the New York Times last month of her time in the House so far, “I think I have more of a context of what it takes to do this job and survive on a day-to-day basis in a culture that is inherently hostile to people like me.” The Times noted she has “cut back on her appearances on behalf of Justice Democrats,” a left-wing organization that specializes in primary challenges, and replaced a publicly combative chief of staff with one who is “sober-minded.”

So Ocasio-Cortez is prepared to remain in the Democratic fold, but her endorsement of Sanders means she has no intention of shelving the socialist banner in the process. The Democratic Party’s big tent has long been filled with ideological tensions between moderates and progressives, but now there is also friction between progressives and socialists. And considering that Ocasio-Cortez is 48 years younger than Sanders, you can be sure that the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is not going away anytime soon.

Posted by: donkeytale | Oct 19 2019 18:29 utc | 63

I can't professed to be both outraged AND surprised that HRC pops off as a defender of national security in the very week in which the State Department cites over 600 violations, in mailings to 38 people, of cybersecurity practices in her use of a private email server to handle that slippery zone of overlap between the business of the State in its dealings with foreign entities and the business of the Clinton Foundation.

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Oct 19 2019 18:53 utc | 64

New York and a handful of other highly urbanized and ultra-liberal population centers would always carry the day. There would be no need to vote anymore. Maybe that is the idea......

Posted by: nemo | Oct 19 2019 15:11 utc | 19

Delusional rant. For starters, "ultra-liberal" is an oxymoron, liberals being fanatical "moderates", balancing progressive tidbits in their planks with imperialist propaganda etc. New Way, triangulation etc.

And now let us check what kind of candidates actually appeared from Empire State. HRC in 2016, Gillibrand in this election season... Compare to Vermont or Hawaii.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 19 2019 19:02 utc | 65

Lot of magical thinking here.

Although most would agree with librul @48 that "Hillary OWNS the Democratic Party" and everyone knows of the DNC-Hillary collusion in 2016, many still believe that Tulsi is independent and that her weak anti-war stance is genuine.

LOL.

Hillary's willingness to "meddle" in the 2020 election supports my belief that Hillary threw the election in 2016. Although I've described (several times) a strong circumstantial case for this belief, it appears that propaganda narratives are just too strong to allow people to entertain such a notion. The resulting cognitive dissonance is palpable.

Once again (just a quick summary):

>> the Deep State wanted a MAGA Nationalist to counter the challenge from Russia and China. Kissinger called for MAGA in his 2014 WSJ Op-Ed and Trump was the ONLY MAGA nationalist in the 2016 race. What's more, he was the ONLY POPULIST in the Republican Primary (there were 18 other candidates).

>> Hillary focused on Trump early on, which helped to deny media attention to other candidates. Then she made mistakes that no seasoned candidate would make: snubbing progressives; taking the black vote for granted, calling whites "deplorables", and choosing not to campaign during the final weeks in the 3 states that SHE KNEW would decide the election.

>> The Trumps and Clintons were very close for many years. We are asked to believe that they are no longer close. But the kayfabe of the election becomes clear when we see that Trump has brought into his Administration the friends and associates of many who (supposedly) HATE him:

VP Mike Pence was buddies with John McCain (now deceased);

John Brennan publicly supported Gina Haspel as CIA Director;

Atty General William Barr is close with Mueller who, in turn, mentored Comey.

John Bolton is a neocon - neocons were the most prominent 'Never Trump'-ers

>> Trump has proven that he is not actually a "populist outsider" that would put 'America First' - he's just more-of-the-same in a new package: he passed a tax cut for the rich, increased military spending, and has attacked several countries: Syria (missile attacks, illegal occupation); Iran (trade embargo); Yemen (active support for Saudis); Venezuela (seized government assets; supported a coup attempt). The only difference with his predecessors is that Clinton, Bush, and Obama didn't face the powerful alliance of Russia and China.

>> The 2016 election did more than just (s)elect Trump. It also formed the basis for initiating a new McCarthism. That was based largely on just these four things:

The Steele dossier
which was sponsored by Hillary as an "insurance policy" (despite general agreement that she was virtually certain to win the election!);

Trump's hiring of Manafort as campaign manager
this made little sense except for an 'America First' Trump but very useful to Russiagate because Manafort was known to have worked for pro-Russian candidates/Parties in Ukraine;

Trump's publicly calling for Putin to publish Hillary's emails
emails that were known at the time to contain super top secret info; How was that 'America first'? And why hasn't he been prosecuted for abetting a crime?

The "hack" of the DNC emails
We now know that it was a leak that was blamed on Russia;

It didn't take a "vast right wing conspiracy" for the Deep State to ensure the election of their preferred MAGA nationalist, just Bill & Hillary Clinton, Trump, McCain, Mueller, Bush, Kissinger, Brennan, and maybe a few others. But they couldn't have done it without a beholden, complicit press and a dumbed-down, unskeptical public. Thanks America!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2019 19:02 utc | 66

Thanks to karlof1 advice,

..before I was banned I donated and still continue to donates about 10 times $5 to $25 and keep Tulsi Gabbard in the race.

Posted by: JS | Oct 19 2019 19:08 utc | 67

From the same interview (I'm copying "Vivian O'Blivion" comment on Craig Murray's blog):

Speaking this week, Hillary Clinton decries the proliferation of web news sites and forums. “I think it’s a lot harder for Americans to KNOW what they’re SUPPOSED to believe …”.
Referring to an era where there was a small number of national newspapers she continues; “It was a much more controllable environment.”.
Hillary has previous on letting the mask slip. You’d have thought they would have confined her to a luxury sanitarium safety removed from the cameras.

Posted by: Keith McClary | Oct 19 2019 19:15 utc | 68

Info northwest not meme.
Hoping for Tulsi to respond to Clinton with a vid of Black Sabbath's War Pigs.

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Oct 19 2019 19:16 utc | 69

Someone somewhere should investigate the BUSH/CLINTON NEXUS

Posted by: steve | Oct 19 2019 19:24 utc | 70

Sorry for the OT but any Epstein developments?

Posted by: Lozion | Oct 19 2019 19:37 utc | 71

Aggression and the victim, or Tibetan fox and a marmot.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 19 2019 19:41 utc | 72

Wrote this last week, have been waiting for the subject to come up:

It's The Charisma, stupid!
Donald Trump is cunning; he knows that his only serious rival is Tulsi Gabbard. so does the DNC. It’s obvious that the only battle the neo-liberal ruling cabal has to fear is: Mussolini V. Wonderwoman!
It's no contest. Mussolini is old and hideous but he could easily trounce any of the pathetic Democrat mediocrities vying for the brainwashed " political center". A left/right coalition attracting a flood of "unlikely voters” is the only thing that might sweep the Prison Industrial Military Pharmaceutical complex out of absolute power.
Tulsi is the only candidate directly challenging this PIMP on all fronts. Trump’s only chance to beat her is in the Democratic primaries, and his chances are good because the DNC is entirely on his side! We can expect that Trump will mimic Tulsi’s talking points at every opportunity. And then the Dutifully Deranged Democrats will shout: " See – – Assad-Modi-Al Sisi-Putin———Trump!
Meanwhile the Hillary Only/DNC (HO/DNC) will be trying to trick the Republicans into a primary of their own, this is what the so-called impeachment spectacle is really about. The big money behind the HO/DNC will try to bribe enough Republican politicians to force the replacement of Trump with a candidate that Hillary might be able to defeat.

Posted by: NOBTS | Oct 19 2019 19:41 utc | 73

@ Posted by: james | Oct 19 2019 16:18 utc | 31

That's because the Americans have an extremely pragmatic concept of "truth": for them, something is only true as long as it serves their own way of life (i.e. American Dream). A fact today can be a lie tomorrow; a lie today can become a fact tomorrow; a fact today can remain a fact tomorrow; a lie today can remain a lie tomorrow; and vice versa. All this depends on how these narratives fit into the Americans' way of life.

For example: 99.999% of the American people never have heard of the Kurds before Turkey's invasion of NE Syria. But after the NYT, WaPo et caterva sounded the sirens, this was the signal for all the Americans to pretend they knew the Kurd imbroglio since the beginning and act against Trump as if they were veteran pro-Kurd cause militants. But the thing is: they know they don't give a damn about the Kurds, and they know that, tommorow, they may be advocating for the extermination of the very Kurds they are defending now -- but they also know that, in their own way of seeing the world, truth is relative, so it doesn't configure what we call "hypocrisy".

This pragmatic and relativistic (postmodern) conception of truth results in some very nonsensical, absurd phenomena that only happens in the USA, e.g. flat earth society, anti-vaxxers, the "gender is not determined biologically" troupe etc. etc. What all of these activist movements have in common is that they transformed a lie into a truth for the simple and extremely pragmatic fact that it fitted their way of life to consider them so: flat earthers because they chose not to believe the "establishment" anymore (specially the USG); anti-vaxxers because medical services in San Francisco became too expensive for the local upper-middle class; the "Infinite genders" because there are a lot of legal privileges to gain by considering a sex orientation as equal to a gender. It's not that these people don't know they are defending lies; it's that they decided it would be better to socially transform those lies into truths.

By the same logic, the pro-Hillary people know she's a war criminal, Wall Street puppet etc. etc. That's not the issue. The issue is that, in order to defend their way of life, they chose that it was better for people like HRC to continue to govern the USA than, e.g. a socialist like Bernie Sanders or an anti-war like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump. Those same people would already be voting Republican right now and asking for the death of Bernie Sanders et al if the Republicans were fielding people like Mitt Romney. Because that's politics: the struggle for raw, unadultered power, not a contest to see who's right and who's wrong.

This American pragmatism also cuts the other way: during WWII, FDR literally turned the country socialist in order to save the country's capitalism. After the war ended, Truman took care to destroy the socialist "temporary structure" in order to restore the capitalist soul of the USA. But it was only a work of destiny FDR himself didn't do that, since he died before the war ended.

--//--

@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 19 2019 17:40 utc | 54

The USA remains a democracy. It's only it doesn't mean what the majority of the American and European peoples think it means.

The thesis that governs post-war Western Democracy (liberal democracy) is the one called "Vital Center". It was systematized by Arthur Meyer Schlesinger Jr. in the homonymous book, published in 1947.

The Vital Center thesis states that the West is not an absolutely free society and, therefore, the dualism isn't the one between government vs non-government. Instead, what differentiated the West from the USSR was that, while the USSR had a "one ideology" society, the West's society was made of a confederation of eternally competing ideologies that relayed in the government from time to time. To put it metaphorically, the USSR was a cold, dead core, devoid of any individualism and creativity (and freedom), while the West, although not entirely free (because there was mass culture, consumism etc. etc.), had a living, vibrant core as a result of this mix of ideologies who peacefully debated in the public arena and disputed political power. In this context, it was better to live in a society with limited freedom (the West) than in a society with absolutely zero freedom (the USSR). This society with zero freedom he calls "totalitarianism".

But there's a catch: Schlesinger states that the West is not entirely free -- and should not be entirely free. He stated that there was an acceptable limit to freedom of ideology, since, theoretically, the people of an entirely free nation could democratically choose totalitarianism. On one side, he pondered that, as long as the economy stays well and growing, the people would "naturally" not choose totalitarianism. On the other hand, he is very clear when stating "totalitarian" ideologies should not be allowed to dispute the power in a Western democratic nation. People should be free to manifest their views and opinions -- up to a point. After that "point", violent supression by the State was not only perfectly acceptable, but necessary. Limited freedom, yes; absolute freedom, no.

Hence the name of his doctrine -- "vital center": a society made of a political spectrum (from left to right), beyond which any opinion was unnacceptable. This ideology is valid until nowadays, and we can identify it through other names: pluralism, multiculturalism, liberalism, centrism, moderate etc. etc.

Hence, when I hear or read people stating China doesn't have "freedom of speech", but the West has, I laugh: the West doesn't have freedom of speech; censorship occurs and occurs constantly in the West -- the difference being it occurs in a different manner than in China, through what we call nowadays "politically correct culture" (or "PC culture"). If I'm not mistaken, there was a guy -- Colin Kaepernick -- who had his career literally destroyed, under thunderous applause of the mob, just because he kneeled to the American Anthem. Isn't this censorship?

Posted by: vk | Oct 19 2019 19:43 utc | 74

Frankly, who cares? Two losers fighting among themselves.

Posted by: Laguerre | Oct 19 2019 19:44 utc | 75

"Sanders is a socialist."

That's comical. Actually he is an opportunist with as much substance as a wet paper bag. I met him about 20 years ago at the Bangor (Maine) Labor Temple. The local Labor Council had organized a picnic, and for some reason he was in Eastern Maine, a very long way from Vermont. At the time he was still in the US House of Representatives.

I was a card-carrying member of the IWW, and as such, I was happy to meet a socialist Congresscritter. I asked him which socialist party he was a member of, as the US has a bunch of tiny sectarian socialist organizations that will never amount to a hill of beans. He could have said, "Liberty Union Party", a tiny Vermont affiliate of Socialist Party USA which has no statewide offices. Or he could have said, "I'm an independent". Instead he looked aghast that I would ask such a (probing?) question and immediately made some excuse to leave. Funny as hell.

Does any of this matter? As far as I can tell, he has never been the Democratic Party candidate on any ballot, even his last election to the Senate. But he claims to be a loyal Democratic Party Member, and maybe a "socialist" who denies his roots. Or something. As far as I can tell, he is really an entertainer pushing for a bigger role in the US Electoral Breadless Circus.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 19:44 utc | 76

Most Americans don't vote. Who reliably and predictably votes is old ladies. They love Hilary. The ladies do not require evidence to believe in Hilary and there is no evidence against her they would ever believe. Hilary is sainted and it is a matter of faith. Don't try to mess with faith.

I know. Two 'l"s. Won't.

The polling stations are staffed by old women. Old women go to meetings. Old women volunteer. All grassroots work is done by old women. Hilary owns them. Were this man to do something as unlikely as to attend a ward meeting, I'd be an interloper. There would be suspicion I was looking for sex, even if none present were capable of providing such. Young women would look in the door and leave. Politics in America is completely insane and Hilary fits perfectly.

I was just doing some maintenance work for a 91 year old neighbor. A big Hilary fan. She is very evidently in better health and more mobile than Hilary. Hard to believe Hilary would run again. It was a total shitshow last time because she could not make a full, or any, schedule of appearances. Would be worse this time. Myself just don't believe they really count the votes.
Hilary got dumped last time because they realized she could not perform all the ceremonial appearances a President must make. So they took the Hilary-chosen alternate. If she runs she will meltdown daily. Could be entertaining.

Posted by: oldhippie | Oct 19 2019 19:49 utc | 77

So we got a nest of Tulsiversteher to go with all the Putinversteher who congregate here. Only thing that woman is good for is guaranteeing that Trump will get re-elected.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 19 2019 19:55 utc | 78

I wonder why the US political establishment and media continue to give the time of day to an ageing Klintonator by highlighting her ravings and other behaviour indicative of self-centred sociopathy. They are just as culpable as HRC in continuing to derail and corrupt next year's presidential election process, as if it were not already corrupted and exhausted in the way it is being drawn out, not to mention the billions that will be spent by corporations, billionaire individuals and foreigners in places like Jerusalem and Kiev buying politicians and entire parties.

Posted by: Jen | Oct 19 2019 20:04 utc | 79

@ Nathan Mulcahy | Oct 19 2019 17:28 utc | 51

Thanks for this common-sense correction. One of the "tells" for Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is that victims retreat to lizard-brained, juvenile binary-thinking: "Hillary really won!" "Not my president!"

Of course, there's lots to criticize in the US's corrupt and fraudulent electoral politics. But the TDS crowd isn't really debating the merits of the Electoral College, just using the EC as one of the myriad scapegoats for Hillary's richly-deserved defeat.

The sports analogies are obvious. I've compared the "Hillary 'really won'" logic to a US football fan saying, "My team 'really won', because even though the other team ended up ahead on points, my team had way more total yardage!"

Posted by: Ort | Oct 19 2019 20:14 utc | 80

Rob #57

Warren is phony Clinton copy
Warren is a phony pocohontas
Warren is a lying Clinton copy
Warren is a blue dog democrat Clinton copy
Warren is a waste of space and a Clinton copy
Warren lied about being pregnant and having to quit her job
Warren is unfit to be a lawmaker at any level

How's that Then?

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 19 2019 20:19 utc | 81

Tulsi is now the front runner. Her broadside tweet got over 70,000 retweets in 17 minutes and more than 240,000 total. Trump has to fire Pompous Minimus now and replace him with Tulsi or she will beat him in 2020.

Posted by: William H Warrick | Oct 19 2019 20:26 utc | 82

That Tulsi Krishna cult thing won't play well. When amplified, could be sufficient to take her out of the race.

Posted by: Kristan hinton | Oct 19 2019 20:28 utc | 83

I recall, long ago, the dictionary difference between democracy and republic was:
D--the people/citizens vote to elect...
R-- the voters elect...

I.e., the difference was between the "people" vs "the voters".

The former were composed of all the "adult people" and the latter composed of a sub-group of people who were somehow from the "adult people" and given the right to be "the voters".

In the intervening years, the definitions of D and R have changed to no clear distinction.

Am I getting too old and confused, or has insanity been introduced by changing the definitions?

[1] Anyone care to explain?
[2] Then, wen did we become a Democracy?

Posted by: chu teh | Oct 19 2019 20:30 utc | 84

above, I meant "...somehow selected from the 'adult people'..."

[will try to remember to use "preview" feature.]

Posted by: chu teh | Oct 19 2019 20:34 utc | 85

Killary can't be suspended:

Unlike elsewhere in the world, joining the two major parties isn’t contingent upon membership fees or an application process. Party leaders also don’t have the power to say someone isn’t a Democrat or a Republican.

So political affiliation in the United States is a matter of self-identification, in both the governing system and the party organizations, experts said. That allows Sanders and other elected officials to be flexible.

So neither official party is a political party as commonly understood elsewhere in the world. Rather, the parties are simply conveyor belts to move aspiring elites up through the ranks of power, weeding out the deplorables in the process. It's all generously lubricated with corporate cash, naturally.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 20:37 utc | 86

@ chu teh with that getting old thing

As I am reading the comments I am wondering about the age of some of the writers.

How many remember that The League of Women Voters use to run all the debates?

Those that don't remember that don't realize that the Overton window of "democracy" has shifted significantly since that was the case.

Back when Ike was President we had a 93% tax rate on the rich and America was investing that tax money on infrastructure instead of wars.

And until the 1950's the Motto of the US was E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) instead of the non secular In God We Trust" that was brainwashed into America needing to stand up to godless communism

So now we have godless fascism and are approaching godless dictatorship. I am not a god fan but as myth goes, there are some fairly good ways to live embodied therein that have fallen by the wayside because of too much faith and not enough logic and reason.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 19 2019 20:49 utc | 87

@76 vk... thanks for commenting on that! i pretty much agree with you, but am not given over to writing it all out! cheers james

Posted by: james | Oct 19 2019 20:56 utc | 88

The Democratic establishment would rather destroy political democracy than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead to open the door to economic democracy. They like the cozy relationship of business and government, in other words corporatism. Benito Mussolini said Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. Here is what a great Canadian Socialist said about this. Too bad Canada doesn't have anyone of Tommy Douglas's stature anymore. The left has surrendered the class war to fight a phony gender war instead.

"Once more let me remind you what fascism is. It need not wear a brown shirt or a green shirt - it may even wear a dress shirt. Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege."

Tommy Douglas

Posted by: Tom | Oct 19 2019 20:57 utc | 89

Why would Clinton bother to throw shade on a candidate that has received little attention and made no traction?

Clinton is not stupid. She is very smart and calculating. SHE MUST KNOW that her collusion against Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary makes a mockery of Hillary's pretence that she cares about protecting democracy. The fact that Mueller found no collusion between Trump and Russia after an exhaustive investigation only makes it worse.

Until Clinton attacked her, Tulsi was best known for the attack on Kamala Harris that caused Harris a big drop in the polls.

Tulsi's recent debate performance flopped. She tried to attack Warren twice. The most important being questioning Warren's readiness to be commander in Chief. But those two attacks faltered because Tulsi ran out of time.

Tulsi was going nowhere . . . fast. The only reason for Hillary to pick a fight with Tulsi is to provide support for Tulsi as Biden's attack dog and future VP. Biden is a fellow pro-establishment Deep-Stater.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 19 2019 21:01 utc | 90

They are ALL actors. Clinton told us we were deplorables specifically to elect the Donald. There is no other explanation for such an experienced poltician to make such a comment. She followed the script and the credulous played along.

The majority is always credulous. They will always believe what they are told because this is how human beings cope with things they are not terribly interested about. They must rely on others to make judgments for them in any mass society.

Now she is telling us Tulsi is a Russian agent at EXACTLY the moment of Trump's greatest success cooperating with the Russians.

Once you get the gist of it there's no going back. You will see that all the world is a stage. Politicians are Public actors, who front for Oligarchs, Families and Fondos (Hedgefunds, BlackRock, etc.). It would be delinquent for such large conglomerations NOT to attempt to manipulate our perceptions when so much money is involved.

Just yesterday Transnational Zionist Media presented us with a smiling, chunky Korean on a Pale White Horse. Of the Apocalypse!

Was this not the most obvious example of Globalist coordination EVER?

Is it a Transition to what they've been planning all along? Is Kim Jong a Cherub of Peace? Or a harbinger of War and a so-called End of Days scenario?

I know, I know... the disonance of seeing something as plain as the nose on your face causes pain for self styled cognitive types; who think they know everything; and are trained from birth to run both to and away from words like 'Jew' and 'Conspiracy,' amongst so many others.

Posted by: Where-Wolf | Oct 19 2019 21:13 utc | 91

this is a hit job on behalf of the Judeo-Zionists performed by the head maid of the Clinton House of Horror. Hillary will not join the electoral arena, again, but the hit is done to clear the space for the "new" Indian Obama, E. made at Harvard. Warren.

Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Oct 19 2019 21:22 utc | 92

>In the intervening years, the definitions of D and R have changed
>to no clear distinction.
>
>Am I getting too old and confused, or has insanity been introduced
>by changing the definitions?
>
>[1] Anyone care to explain?
>[2] Then, wen did we become a Democracy?
>Posted by: chu teh | Oct 19 2019 20:30 utc | 86

[1] They are two branches of the Business Party. No other parties are allowed to exist in any meaningful way. Fun fact: the Democratic Party was preceded by the Democratic-Republican Party. The names have no meaning and the parties have no history before last year.

The Democratic Party's website is interesting. It says the Party is 200 years old, but according to their history webpage, nothing of note happened the first 100 years. No mention that they were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. The Civil War never happened, apparently.

Somewhere along the way the two official parties swapped places. The party of slaveholders somehow became the defenders of poor people and civil rights for black people in the South. (Discrimination in the North was still OK.)

Meanwhile the Republicans, originally organized to fight slavery, became the party of the rich and started attacking poor people for being poor, including the people that the party was first organized to liberate. When the Dummycrats started defending black people (sort of) with civil rights laws, Southern whites rebelled at their loss of privilege and the Repugnants welcomed them with open arms. This is known as "the Southern Strategy".

[2] By "we", I assume the poster refers to the US nation state. It's not a democracy. It never was, and became much less so after the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution. Today, US police kill three civilians a day, every day, year after year. The police are so afraid of the citizens that anytime they see something that *might* be a weapon, someone dies. That sounds more like a police state.

Over the decades the federal government has assumed more and more control of everything via funding. Example: In the 1970s many states lowered the alcohol drinking age to 18. Uncle Sam said no, and they enforced it by withholding highway funding. As far as I know, the drinking age is back to 21 everywhere. Although known as "states", they have little more control than "provinces" in other nation states.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Oct 19 2019 21:24 utc | 93

Jackrabbit #92
"Why would Clinton bother to throw shade on a candidate that has received little attention and made no traction?"

No one must stray from the path. Tulsi must be destroyed as an example to any who might choose this path. The DNC seems to be following the Ledeen Doctrine in its actions against outliers. The "Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." I think Tulsi knows a thing or two about the empire throwing a country against a wall the aftermath.

https://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2006/11/failing-forward-time-to-throw-another.html

Posted by: Tom | Oct 19 2019 21:25 utc | 94

Thanks b

Hillary distracts from this real news about her criminality .

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 19 2019 21:29 utc | 95

I should ad to my above post #97 that this is a just released report and Hillaries day before attack on Gabbard is just so typical of the lying deceitful shenanigans that the Clinton's have played for decades.

When will prosecutors go after the perpetrators of the single biggest breach of USA national security EVER?

Go for it Tulsi Gabbard and if this Clinton coward won't debate you then convene your own debate and get Joe Rogan as the moderator. I'd like to see that.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 19 2019 21:35 utc | 96

all things are done, of late, to clear the way for Warren. first, the coup against Biden for Hunter & Ukraine cash register, Sander´s "manufactured" health happening, and now, the hit to take out the eventual "spoilers" like Gabbard & Co.

Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Oct 19 2019 21:49 utc | 97

If this election campaigning continues on its current trend, Trump will win big in 2020, and the Democratic Party, having chosen vindictiveness over governance, will slide into the irrelevancy it so richly deserves.
As a +70 ex-American I'm not so naive as to think the US would ever elect a Pacific Islander woman of Samoan/Hindu heritage to the White House, but it sure is refreshing to see her out there.

Posted by: Hal Duell | Oct 19 2019 22:03 utc | 98

I want to tie this with b’s last post on Syria. I also want to second the praise for Jonathan Cook’s article on Syria cited in bevin’s comment @250. Hillary and Syria are all wrapped up together. In 2014 pointman Joe Biden green lighted a civil war in Ukraine on Russia’s border that restarted the Cold War in 2014. Russia recognized that it faced a second round of western exploitation and destruction. It responded by making an alliance with China and in 2015 joined with Hezbollah and Iran to save the Syrian government. Hillary Clinton and corporate Democrats are so corrupt and dependent on donor’s money, they are psychotically divorced from reality. Donald Trump not so much. Russia phobia serves their purpose of avoiding détente. The Syrian War is lost. Russia will not be looted again. The free flow of Saudi Arabian oil is at risk. Japan is ending forces to the Persian Gulf. An Iranian War will destroy the West’s economy and splinter the UK and USA apart. MbS’s head will roll. Israel faces non-nuclear mutually assured destruction with Hezbollah and constriction. The only safe way out is peace.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Oct 19 2019 22:10 utc | 99

Sanders is a fraud, a sidekick, feint maneuver of the Left, deserving performer of the Tribe, never wanted to be President but to hoard the Progressive Left to vote, as the lesser bad choice, for the chosen of the "Chosens".

Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Oct 19 2019 22:12 utc | 100