Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Amid all the accusations that Hillary Clinton is not an honest or authentic politician, that she’s an endless shape-shifter who says whatever works to get her to the next primary, it’s important not to lose sight of the one truth she’s been telling, and will continue to tell, the voters: things will not get better. Ever.

It may sound sick, but my gut reaction to reading the bolded portion made me guffaw. I think part of the reason I laughed is because it immediately reminded me of George Carlin talking about her better (or worse, depending on pov) half: "At least he's honest!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0twWuMAUqrQ

[Alaya]

Nobody's posted this yet?

John Pilger: Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump

https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john- ... ialnetwork

[coffin_dodger]

When your only choice is between Hillary 'things are fucked, and will remain so for the next 4, possibly 8, years' Clinton and Donald 'things are fucked, and will remain so for the next 4, possibly 8, years' Trump, it's probably best to devote a little time spent coming to terms with what the future holds. I suppose, in some ways, that's what we do here.

[Nordic]

Nobody's posted this yet?

John Pilger: Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump

https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john- ... ialnetwork

Actually there's a separate thread for this very piece of writing. It has a different title than this though.

Btw, hi! Been a while. Good to see you back.

[PufPuf93]

The Libya Gamble: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Push for War & the Making of a Failed State

Published on Mar 3, 2016


http://democracynow.org - The New York Times has published a major two-part exposé titled "The Libya Gamble" on how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this month. Today, Libya is a failed state and a haven for terrorists. How much should Hillary Clinton be blamed for the crisis? We speak to journalist Scott Shane of The New York Times.

[Nordic]

This seems to be the latest propaganda slant from Hillary supporters. That they like Bernie, but his supporters are all obnoxious aggressive MEN, and that's icky. Oh, and these guys have this horrible sleazy notion that they won't vote for Hillary if she's nominated! (How horrid!). Check this out. From a woman on FB. I've seen other online women express this same bullshit. It's an organized attack, subtler than most, but clearly coming from a central source.

For the longest, I was undecided, but leaning Sanders, and leaning kind of hard because I, too, have a socialist dream for America, and the idea of a Jewish president, after so many years of living with antisemitism as part of my daily life, thrilled me. But after my experiences of the last 48 hours, I'm starting to think I may have missed something crucial in Sanders because of the kind of people he's attracting. This is the year of Angry White People (But Mostly Men) Who Care More About Their Anger Than Literally Anything Else, Including the Lives of Vulnerable People. And it concerns me.

Trump's screeching acolytes gleefully follow his orders to attack Black protestors at his rallies, hating the new diverse world and its demands that they not be openly racist. Sanders has a sizable segment of (usually white, usually male) followers who flock to attack anyone who says anything positive about Clinton even if they're also saying positive things about Sanders, smugly pretending that HRC is no different than Trump, vowing to crater the country by handing it to Trump if they don't get their way (I've seen everything from vowing to stay home to vowing to literally vote for Trump), completely protected from the consequences of their actions by their privilege, happy to risk the lives of women and people of color for what they're mistakenly calling their "conscience" or "morality," but what really means "the world inside my head is more important than the actual safety of women, people of color, and Muslims."

Whatever makes white men feel good about themselves is always the highest good, the most morally correct choice. Whatever challenges that is immoral, unjust, and must be attacked and rejected without compromise, because the Most Important Good takes inviolable precedence. In that, there's no difference between the Angry White Men who follow Trump and the Angry White Men who follow Sanders. Both believe their chosen candidate is the only possible savior for a country deep in a horrifying morass of injustice *against them*. Both display a complete lack of concern about the lives of *others*, and are indignant when asked to care-- in fact, see being asked to care about what happens to others as a consequence of this election as a great injustice in itself. Both focus immense attention on attacking people who disagree with them.

The difference between Trump and Sanders themselves as candidates is abundantly clear, especially if you're a woman, person of color, or a Muslim. One key difference is that Trump encourages his fans' anger and violence, while Sanders decries his followers' attacks on HRC and her supporters. Sanders has been clear that attacks on HRC and her supporters are inappropriate and do not represent him. And yet, these Angry White Men ignore him. It's baffling.

I posted an article that says nothing but "I like both candidates and we should vote blue, no matter who, but those of you who are attacking Clinton in sexist terms should tone it down a bit." And I have been relentlessly attacked by Sanders supporters, almost all white men (based on their pictures and profiles). The attacks all fall into one of three types: straight-up gendered attacks on me personally ("bitch," "cunt," etc), lengthy and indignant defenses of people choosing to vote for Sanders that rail against unjust accusations I never made (entirely missing the point of the article), or lengthy attacks on HRC while claiming Sanders is basically a saint (entirely proving the point of the article). When I posted a facebook status about the attacks (looking for a little support, as you do), some of MY OWN FRIENDS did exactly the same thing, minus the gendered namecalling. Baffling. And deeply thought-provoking.

These relentless attacks have been eye-opening for me, and have made me suspicious of Sanders as a candidate, despite his constant requests that his followers stop. I look at his positions, proposals, and statements, and I think: What am I missing? What's here that attracts so many angry white men who place their feelings above the actual, genuine safety of vulnerable people?

I don't have an answer. But I do know that I'm seeing the same Angry White Guy behavior from both Trump supporters and Sanders supporters, and it frightens me. The minute I hit post, there will be responses from Angry White Men telling me how unfairly I'm treating them, how evil Clinton is, how important it is that they be praised for "voting their conscience" instead of voting for the actual highest good, again placing what makes white men feel good about themselves as a higher good than the literal safety of others. And I will delete them all.

Trump has openly threatened the safety and well being of women, people of color, Muslims, immigrants, protestors, and even journalists. He openly stated that the military will unquestioningly obey his orders even if they're illegal, a statement his handlers finally convinced him to unconvincingly walk back in a prepared statement. This is terrifying. People of real conscience should be banding together to do whatever needs to be done to stop him. And yet, there's a large sector of Sanders supporters who see their inner emotional lives-- what they're mistakenly calling their "conscience," but what is actually their opinion of themselves as the most important people in the nation-- as the only important consideration, vowing to take their balls and go home if Clinton wins the nomination.

I'm not discussing Hillary or her followers here, because this post is about my personal experience, and I've said nice things about Sanders many times without being attacked by HRC supporters. If your personal experience is different, I encourage you to post about it on your own facebook timelines, not mine. I am completely uninterested in discussing Sanders vs Clinton, and I will delete every single comment about that. This post is about the way white male anger has operated, and continues to operate, in this campaign cycle. The way it places itself as the highest good, the most important consideration. The way it obliterates empathy. That's what we're discussing.

Yeah support Hillary because you're concerned for the safety of Muslims. Wow.

These people are deliberately blind to the facts that Hillary has already been responsible for the murder of thousands of Muslims. And they don't want to hear about it. And they call themselves "liberals" and "progressives". Mind-blowing.

[mentalgongfu2]

The thing about The Angry White Male is that whether or not that anger is justified, it is real. Dismissing it out of hand on the basis it isn't justified because White Privelege only serves to strengthen the sense angry white males have that their views and place in society has no value. These people exist. They are regular human beings and not all racist fascist bastards, at least not conciously or deliberately. And until what passes for the American left acknowledges that their POV has some legitimacy they will be lining up for war on those who, in their view, treat them as a group that is just plain wrong and should be ignored if not stamped out. It's about emotion, and You just can't tell someone that how they feel is wrong. I mean, you can, but not effectively. Emotion and logic tend to operate on separate planes.

[82_28]

Nordic wrote:

This seems to be the latest propaganda slant from Hillary supporters. That they like Bernie, but his supporters are all obnoxious aggressive MEN, and that's icky. Oh, and these guys have this horrible sleazy notion that they won't vote for Hillary if she's nominated! (How horrid!). Check this out. From a woman on FB. I've seen other online women express this same bullshit. It's an organized attack, subtler than most, but clearly coming from a central source.

It's a damn shame that Dan Savage had to call Bernie Sanders supporters "idiots" today. Friends and I were talking and it was brought up that The Stranger is now dead to us. Don't call your readership idiots, asshole. I basically said fuck The Stranger when he came out in favor of the Iraq "war". He since recanted and whatnot, but the damage was done. I wonder how he will flip flop when Sanders wins WA tomorrow?

[Nordic]

The thing about The Angry White Male is that whether or not that anger is justified, it is real. Dismissing it out of hand on the basis it isn't justified because White Privelege only serves to strengthen the sense angry white males have that their views and place in society has no value. These people exist. They are regular human beings and not all racist fascist bastards, at least not conciously or deliberately. And until what passes for the American left acknowledges that their POV has some legitimacy they will be lining up for war on those who, in their view, treat them as a group that is just plain wrong and should be ignored if not stamped out. It's about emotion, and You just can't tell someone that how they feel is wrong. I mean, you can, but not effectively. Emotion and logic tend to operate on separate planes.

Yes, but the post was very clever in how it equated Bernie supporters with Trump supporters by painting them with the same Angry White Men brush. Note how zero was said about Hillary. Zero. Because you can't really defend Hillary without going into pure fantasy-land or sounding like a Republican. Instead the argument is presented, very subtlety and cleverly, that Bernie himself is an Angry White Man. And is thus dangerous for women!

This woman put some serious work into this piece. I'm starting to see this exact same argument pop up among online Hillary supporters. I think it's an orchestrated meme.

[Nordic]

Then check this out. By Lee Camp, a comedian who does a Daily Show-like program (if Jon Stewart had actually had the balls to delve into more Deep State type stuff) asked the following question on his FB page:

Quick question - Has anyone actually met a Hillary supporter? I've run into hundreds of #Bernie supporters and plenty of Trump supporters (sadly) but I've never seen a Hillary supporter. I'm being serious. I'd love to hear if you have.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 8262571903

The answers are pretty interesting. Who are these "millions" of largely invisible Clinton supporters?

[Sounder]

They are regular human beings and not all racist fascist bastards, at least not conciously or deliberately. And until what passes for the American left acknowledges that their POV has some legitimacy they will be lining up for war on those who, in their view, treat them as a group that is just plain wrong and should be ignored if not stamped out.

Yes, treat them as a group so as to deny them their individual voices, you know, like what racists do.

It is easy to put a tag on another person so as to feel justified in ignoring what that person has to say. And it's done because of personal insecurity, it works and the repetition seems to function as a scarlet letter.

Works well even here at RI.

Hey No Platform-- Fuck you

[fruhmenschen]

and you really thought your taxpayer funded
FBI agents would indict Hilary Clinton



silly rabbit


http://www.occurrencesforeigndomestic.com
Bernie Sanders Lays Out His Requirements For Endorsing Hillary Clinton

Posted on March 25, 2016 by willyloman

(And here you have it folks. This is how they get (Jeb Bush) Hillary Clinton “elected” to the highest office in the land when she is considered one of the least trustworthy candidates in the running and when so few of her own party constituents want her to win. You get the ebil Donald “Crazyman” Trump to run on the right as the nightmare option to vote against … and Bernie “Lovable Grandpa” Sanders to herd the disenfranchised flock back into the corporatist neoliberal New Dem pen: a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Sanders is certainly intelligent enough to know any promise Killary makes will be broken as soon as she is in office. Yet here he is, already talking about endorsing the war-mongering criminal when he finally drops out of the race. You Bernie fans get ready to feel the burn, cus it’s coming.)

from the Huffington Post
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) insisted he’ll stay in the presidential race, but outlined conditions under which he would endorse Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton “if I can’t make it.”

Sanders, who badly trails Clinton in delegates for the Democratic nomination, said Wednesday that his chief priorities include making sure the party embraces his anti-establishment platform and expands its base.

“If I can’t make it — and we’re going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast — we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors,” Sanders said in an interview on the progressive Web show “The Young Turks.”

Sanders also listed policy demands he would make of Clinton, including a single-payer health care system, a $15 an hour minimum wage, tougher regulation of the finance industry, closing corporate tax loopholes and “a vigorous effort to address climate change.”

[read more here]

[&&]{**}[##]

“… there is massive evidence that shows financial abuses— including money laundering —at the Clinton Foundation and overwhelming evidence that donors were helped by Ms. Clinton…..”

http://observer.com/2016/03/bombshell-c ... ry-allies/

via

http://www.t-room.us/

[&&]{**}[##]

THE Guide to Intel Classification

https://cryptome.org/2016/03/dni-classi ... -guide.pdf

[&&]{**}[##]

Francis Boyle calls her “a certified psychopath and a war criminal.”

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2016/03/s ... us-us.html

[&&]{**}[##]

Madeleine Albright: War Crime Trials Are Necessary for Humanity’s Future

TIME

about noon on Good Friday

Madeleine Albright is a former U.S. Secretary of State. They help us achieve truth, justice and reconciliation.

[Ed.: She’s gonna round up her friends and mentors as indictees?]

[&&]{**}[##]

“… That Turkey is supporting Jihadis not only in Syria but also in Libya and in the Balkans has been documented but was missing from main stream news. We can hope that some of the bigger media will now pick up on this….”

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/03/ro ... syria.html

[&&]{**}[##]

https://www.rt.com/news/337210-palmyra- ... tage-isis/

[&&]{**}[##]

http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2016/ ... almya.html

[&&]{**}[##]

http://rockthetruth2.blogspot.com/2016/ ... rdino.html

[&&]{**}[##]

“… After more than 13 years of presenting thoughtful critiques to senior officials – and having little discernible impact – we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity are strongly tempted to take some solace in having made a good-faith effort to spread some truth around – and, now, go play golf. But the stakes are too high. We can’t in good conscience approach the first tee without having tried one more time….”

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/23/u ... t-torture/

[&&]{**}[##]

Jurisprudence Visible from the Powder Room

http://www.people.com/article/sarah-palin-tv-judge-show

[&&]{**}[##]



http://thumbnail.image.rakuten.co.jp/@0 ... pg?_ex=200×200&s=2&r=1

Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, Robin Winks, William Morrow and Co., New York 1991 is a book I read and from which I excerpted eighty pages of material when developing “Mosaica”, a long series for a previous blog with a thesis that the goal and intent of apparently opposite energies and theories of socialism, communism, fascism and capitalism may be pushing us all in the same direction.

Page 282 of Winks specifically mentions planting lies–“whispers,” or “sibs”.

[&&]{**}[##]

Ted Cruz called a tabloid story of alleged extramarital affairs “utter lies” and blamed Donald Trump “henchmen” for pushing the story.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/cruz-res ... him_032016

via

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

[&&]

http://dcwhispers.com/report-cruz-campa ... ral-weeks/

[&&]{**}[##]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-conte ... uirer1.jpg

(Readers will note the name “Roger Stone.”) Yes, the Enquirer, who also got Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and IIRC Tiger Woods right. So….)

“The actual story—which is not online, but which Gawker has obtained a copy of—does not name any of the women with whom Cruz purportedly was involved. Descriptions are given for each, however, and at least one should sound very familiar to folks who have been following this election” [Gawker].

“Inside Trump’s plot to thwart a contested convention and seize control of the GOP” [WaPo]. There’s an awful lot of 11-dimensional chess going on here, and I have the feeling none of the players are much good.

“Donald Trump beat Sen. Ted Cruz earlier this month in Louisiana’s Republican presidential primary by 3.6 percentage points, but the Texan may wind up with as many as 10 more delegates from the state than the businessman” [Wall Street Journal, “Ted Cruz Gains in Louisiana After Loss There to Donald Trump”].

Gene Smith’s “Lysistratic Non-Action” tactic proposed against Trump [New York Magazine].

“The John R. Kasich of 2016 is a much mellower politician than the hard-charging congressman of the 1990s, who could be so difficult that House Speaker Newt Gingrich, never known for his diplomacy, offered Mr. Kasich firm advice about his tendency to bulldoze colleagues” [New York Times]. Gingrich mellows out Kasich. What a year this has been…

“Both Clinton and Sanders are starting to beat Trump by a lot” (with many charts) [Philip Bump, WaPo].

Warren on Sanders: “‘He’s out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is. He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I’m still cheering Bernie on” [Politico].

“An Open Letter to Dolores Huerta” [HuffPo]. “[W]hy your article on Bernie Sanders came as such a surprise to me — that the same woman who has made it her life’s mission to speak the truth and shed light on corruption, lies, and false narratives created by the corporate elite and special interest groups, would now suddenly create a narrative that distorts facts and misguides American voters.”

“Common Arguments from Prominent Hillary Clinton Supporters Debunked” [HuffPo]. More analytical than the headline.

WaPo’s [Democratic] delegate tracker [WaPo].

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/ ... 52016.html

[&&]{**}[##]

Open Carry at the Republican Convention: Yes

[kool maudit]

One of the most jarring moments of Ms. Clinton's campaign came for me when she wheeled the bird-corpse Dorienne Gray portrait that is Madeleine Albright out on stage to vomit her stump theology onto women planning a vote for Sanders.

I remember Ms. Albright from Kosovo, of course, where she would sometimes come and visit to check on the looted Yugoslav utilities that comprised and comprise the bulk of her hedge fund, Albright Capital Management. She would stay at the Swiss Diamond in Pristina and meet with PTK officials.

Kosovo is a difficult case for me, because most of my friends there were and are Kosovar Albanians who lived in a state of uncertainty and fear under the Milosevic regime, particularly towards its end, once it knew exactly what NATO planned to do (the Rambouillet accord would have gutted it, allowing NATO troops free rein in even the centre of Belgrade).

I will never begrudge them their celebrations. That said, however, their celebrations are, when viewed from the empire's centre, perhaps just a happy sub-fragment of the war's real goal, which was to dismantle what remained of the Yugoslav nation (and even my Albanian friends, or at least those over 30, remembered that nation fondly as a great and independent world actor) for the benefit of buzzards like Albright and Tony Blair.

See, the Kosovo war was justified strangely. It was justified retroactively. NATO bombed the shit out of the place, and then used the Milosevic regime's reaction to this to justify the bombing. It's a Beckett play. (For more on this, check out Chomsky's "A New Generation Draws The Line"... whatever your thoughts about the man, the facts outlined in the Kosovo chapter of this book check out. I've done it.)

The thing about humanitarian intervention is that it's bullshit. It's bullshit because it is capricious and random (why was East Timor not granted the consideration that Kosovo was?), and it is bullshit because it is destructive rather than creative. Kosovo, we should remember, is the best-case scenario: a pitifully minor gangster-state the size of Los Angeles that remains and will always remain hopelessly dependent on foreign insitutions.

The worst cases are Iraq, Libya, Syria.

So here was Clinton exhuming this foul and unclean bird Albright in the effort to tell women voters that they will go to hell if they do not vote for her.

And it was treated as something relatively normal. Not an outrage, maybe a gaffe, but certainly not a Donald Trump-style, "this person is totally unequipped to run for office given their brutish actions" media event. Something normal.

This criminal and butcher of nations.

Unless we are a people so decadent and trivial that personal manners and rhetorical style are more important than policy and history, then I don't understand this.

I do understand this.

There is a US airbase in Kosovo now near Ferizaj called Camp Bondsteel. I used to go there and buy fun American groceries, Twizzlers and M&Ms and colourful things that made you feel bad after consuming them. Yugoslavia would never have allowed such a base to exist.

But where are they now?

[Karmamatterz]

Kool,

Everything you wrote is full of painful truth. Which is why House of Cards is so popular. It is decadent and in typical American style trivializes the evil that is. Not to be dismissive, but I fall for that show myself. At least the actors/actresses are more attractive. Claire and Frsncis make Bill and Hillary almost appealing in a sick twisted way.

The pols pick and choose which "humanitarian" effort to make not based on being decent humans or statesmen but for whatever bullshit leverage they can muster for unseen/seen advantages of greed.

[Nordic]