Hillary Clinton and the United States, A Threat to Humanity
(Note: this is in no way a defense of the scumbag called Trump)
"Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis," she said. "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,"
Hillary Clinton, Warmonger for President
That statement means to portray Trump (I will not say his first name) as someone who might use nuclear weapons inappropriately. The obvious inference is that the President of the Empire has the authority to use nuclear weapons and that Trump can't be trusted to use them but Clinton can. We can trust Hillary Clinton to use nuclear weapons appropriately. The Clinton supporters say, "ya, Hillary will use nuclear weapons appropriately!!" Trump supporters say, "no way, Trump will use nuclear weapons appropriately!!" You idiots.
Put aside the fact that we're dealing with the preeminent warmonger on the planet, along with Obama, and think about what that means.
(Pause while you're thinking)
The United States of the Land of the Sheeple has an official policy of first strike use of nuclear weapons. I've been around awhile, grew up during and participated in the Vietnam war. I worked for the Department of the Army in Europe the five years before the Wall fell. After the Wall fell and the Soviet Union became Russia, the nuclear weapon (Duck and Cover baby) threat we'd lived under the previous forty years faded into the background for most of us. Fast forward to the "New American Century" and the country accusing Russia of being aggressive has been as aggressive as a Roman Empire dog in heat, implementing the policies to boot. Believe it (fuck you Trump), there are many in the military industrial complex, our government, the Pentagon, and the thinktanks and institutes that would jump at the chance at a nuclear war against Russia. And China for that matter. The New World Order awaits.
Of course class, the right answer is there should be no policy to use nuclear weapons, there should be no nuclear weapons at all. To think otherwise is INSANE. I don't know how else to put it to convey that kind of unbelievably inhumane perspective. We've been there, done that, and it is unacceptable for the human race and the planet.
The point isn't who we can trust most with the nuclear codes, the point is we can't allow any president the opportunity to use them. Ever.
War is a Racket. General Smedley Butler, a gift that keeps on giving. You know how people fantasize about going back in time and who would they most like to meet. One of mine would be Smedley. I don't know how we'd get along, but I'd thank him for his valuable contributions to humanity.
War is a Racket, always, every time. Therefore the appropriate use of nuclear weapons is a false choice. There can be no appropriate use of nuclear weapons.
Hillary Clinton is a war criminal, literally. Most people can't quite get a handle on that. Even when its explained what her role was in the Libya and Syria wars, most can't quite grasp the fact that she's a sociopathic murderer without remorse. She, and Obama, should be arrested, charged with crimes against humanity and locked up until they meet their maker. But that's why Kissinger, Albright, Bush, Cheney, etc., are walking around free, the sheeple just don't get it.
James Corbett tells it like it is with Clinton. This woman is dangerous and could very well start a nuclear war. SHE CANNOT be trusted with nuclear weapons. No President can be trusted. The only answer is total abolition of all nuclear weapons on the planet. For We the Sheeple to accept anything less is asinine.
It's not long and contains very incriminating clips of what Clinton is about.
Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity
[video:https://youtu.be/0EGBOMvBrZw]
The use of nuclear weapons is not being challenged. Hell, U.S. imperialism is not being challenged. Think it can't happen?
"How Close Are We to Nuclear War?"
"Former Bill Clinton cabinet member Perry perceives a danger that none of this year’s presidential wannabes have paid much if any attention to. The most recent candidate to make nuclear arms a central issue was Congressman Dennis Kucinich in 2008. President Obama has played both sides of the nuclear dilemma: rounding up and securing nuclear materials around the world, but also modernizing and miniaturizing American nuclear weapons to make them more “usable.” These days, no one in leadership – or aspiring to leadership – seems committed to actually making the world any safer from nuclear catastrophe. With rare exceptions like Kucinich, this unquestioned reliance on nuclear weapons is mainstream American military group-think, endlessly echoed in mainstream media, and that’s the way it’s been for decades."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-close-are-we-to-nuclear-war/5538453
Comments
She's Insane.
Anybody who would use the threat of nuclear annihilation to win an election is completely nuts - end of story. C
But hey, keep on driving that Cold War nightmare train Hillary. All it does is show the voters a true megalomaniac - the person at the end of the ad who approves it.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Unlike Trump,
I will not let tweets goad me into using nuclear weapons. Rather, I will take the initiative and I will do so only in a cold, calculated manner. However, I also promise that I will not lose my fabled sense of humor about killing people, including, obviously the women and children I am often on about.
Stronger Together. Hillary 2016.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO4fH6g0g0]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O894bXmqqGU]
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvhBoF_pCHo]
Greenpeace activists vs. tweets
Who's got the short fuse?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Unbelievable
Love is my religion.
Right on Big Al
There is not appropriate use of nuclear weapons, and whatever happened to destroying them?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Ya, whatever happened to that?
Seemed like we might actually make progress and then bam, now nuke first strike is a normal part of war planning as an option. They have plans to "strategically nuke Russia and China. All it takes is the right crazies in the wrong place and we're in big trouble. Clinton obviously is one of those crazies.
What's happening, I think,
is that Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, et al, are now driving not only nuclear."modernisation" but also "strategic" nukes for profits, aided and abetted by all the retired armchair flag officers on their boards as well as a whole lot of former/retired military likewise using their connections to keep the whole corrupt out-of-control ball of wax going.
This may be the clearest example of why nations of citizens losing their sovereignty to corporations is a Really Bad Idea.
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
Russia has noticed we're talking first strike & is preparing
Our big cities and bases would be vaporized within minutes of any of theirs.
It's the logical extrapolation of Nazi "Superweapon" policy
Essentially, Hitler believed that if he had scary enough weapons, everybody would just surrender.
This is how the Nazi's got Jets, a Nuke Program, Giant Tanks, and a Eugenics program.
It didn't work, but our politicians bought it for some reason and brought their scientists over here to continue their work.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
She doesn't have a clue about Russia
President Putin has been saying over and over again, do you realize what you are doing? We are getting closer and closer to Nuclear Armageddon. From her perspective the US has the most potent military in the world and needs to drive that home with a credible first strike Nuclear threat. Putin 's perspective is that no one conquers Russia, ever. Pushed to the wall, Russia will use nuclear weapons without hesitation. Putin will have the backing of the Russian people. I can't stress enough that this situation is the most dangerous that we have ever lived through, almost like a continual Cuban Missie Crisis. Please be assured that Russia can completely destroy the US, completely, and we will all be dead. The US has no believable defense.
I'm really close to believing that we have to vote for Trump. That he is a safer bet when it comes to Nuclear war. We would have to tough it out through his administration and hope that the Democrats have enough backbone to stop the worst of the republican bills in the Senate. I don't think that they will get 60 seats in the Senate. They might also have to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee or two.
I want to vote for Jill Stein. The math works like this. If you take a vote from a registered Democrat and vote for a third party, then Hillary is down one vote and Trump is the same. Net one vote for Trump. If you take a Democratic vote from Hillary and vote for Trump, then Hillary is down one and Trump is up one, or net two for Trump.
Yeah, I know, Trump is a megalomaniac, but he has to get any program through Congress and the Republicans who are wary of him can combine with the Democrats to form a majority and block the initiative. I really believe that treading water is vastly better than a Clinton Presidency.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
I hear ya There's still time but at this point I'm still hoping
a movement can coalesce to reject both of the candidates. What would take their place I don't know, but we've got two of the worst candidates possible and the thing about Trump is, as much as he talks, he'd be a republican President with a republican administration and Congress.
I don't know if we can afford to tread water when we don't know if it won't just keep getting worse. I say now is the time to make a major move against this political system. Its not democracy and we're just pushing judgment day down the road by not addressing that.
This is an important discussion to have on this blog.
There's a *majority* of Americans
who want to stop both of these candidates.
Was reading somewhere recently that the 55% of Americans who are adamantly opposed to Clinton is only topped by the 57% similarly opposed to Trump.
Don't know how you make a movement out of that, though, as consumers (formerly known as citizens) still believe in this US party/voting thing. Most have drunk the propaganda Kool-Aid about democracy, exceptionalism, and all that - the few who aren't hooked on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, whatever.
I guess the crux of it is we need to join up with Corbyn's no-nukes UK-out-of-NATO Labour Party across the pond for starters. The French aren't too happy with hapless Hollande's NATO adventures either, so there could be solidarity there, too. Plus lots of peoples I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
That's the thing. clearly there's something wrong with
this picture. Everyone knows it. But how do we address it? I received an email today from some group called "People's Action". Said they're launching a new "people's movement" and that they had 350 people at the recent People's Summit. Of course the email was to ask for donations, set up thru ActBlue which is a democratic party fundraiser.
A people's movement tied to the democratic party. That's just not going to work, in fact, it is detrimental to what should be done. Imagine if all those people involved in the People's summit and the People's Revolution and now this People's Action would get behind a boycott, something geared toward preventing both Clinton and Trump from taking office. But instead they're supporting the Democratic party and by extension, Clinton who is now the de facto head of the party.
So I guess we can forget them. They're not going to help. That leaves who?
Rambling. Time to ponder.
Don't boycott, Vote!
If all the people who don't like what the major parties have to offer would vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson they would have a real chance. Chicken / egg / Catch-22 type of problem. Of course if one refuses to vote for a warmonger or racist xenophobe that makes it easier.
I'm willing to join in a boycott of Trump and Clinton
and the duopoly with those voting for Stein and Johnson if those voting for Stein and Johnson are interested.
I think we should coalesce around a Quadrumvirate of Women
Kshama Sawant's, Jill Stein, Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard. They should start a movement to fight both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and both parties. Also a sort of revenge movement to stop the insanity of both parties and both candidates and do so in memory of Sanders as well, because he was destroyed on purpose.
Let's start an army of women to defeat the first woman candidate for Presidency, to make a point that it is not the womanhood that counts, but what a woman stands for and with whom she goes to bed with, so to speak.
I think many women would join, they are already motivated. Many will follow.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Tara Houska, native American adviser to Sanders, would be
the fifth woman to include in the above.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Zephyr Teachout would make six. /nt
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
We seem to have
more than a few strong, young women leaders who could lead a peace movement.
Maybe we really should consider pitching the idea to them. What could it hurt?
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
Putin said,
shortly after US/NATO went live with its first missile defense/offense system on Russia's border that there will never again be war on Russian soil. He followed that up by saying that nations that had allowed nuclear-capable installations that represented an existential threat to Russia to be installed in their countries had put themselves in Mother Russia's "crosshairs."
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
Why not vote against both
Why not vote against both evils and for the sane, non-corporate, non-psychopathic candidate?
Barring a Bernie miracle, that leaves Jill, and if enough people vote for her, (leaving electoral cheating out of the equation for the moment) guess what happens?
But I have trouble understanding how anyone can vote for either evil from either corporate party when it may be the last chance to vote at all? Never mind try to take the off-ramp away from the highway to hell the entire world is placed on with either the Dem or Republican candidate in the Presidency...
The propaganda has always been that the two-party trade-off is all there is to choose from, because both are corporate/billionaire-controlled and that's what indoctrinated Americans supposed to vote for, but just because the only escape-the-evil door is smaller than the doors to disaster doesn't mean that you have to run toward your own doom and that of others around the world. Best block, no be there. Not for a wide-ranging nuclear war with multiple countries involved and nuclear winter which very little would survive and likely not for long, not for a hostile corporate take-over of all industrialized countries then continuing to be used for the military subjugation of all others as the life-support system of Earth rapidly dies of industrial/military pollution and destruction then unlimited by anything. Already, at current rates, we're looking at insufficient global oxygen production to support life within decades, within the currently potential life-times of people alive now, due to the insatiable greed of those relative few seeking totalitarian control over the world - essentially to exert unlimited power over virtually all others and for data-dots in a computer to say that one of them dies with the most symbolic toys and therefore wins.
Somehow people talking of sticking with either of the two oligarch parties about to make not only democracy but the continuance of life on Earth impossible makes me think of the 'battered wife syndrome' - and of the horse running back into the burning barn. The devil you know may kill you more painfully than you think possible.
Fight for what's right, don't enable the evil, to have any hope of improvement.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
If we really want to stop them,
those voting for Stein probably should join forces with others who are not voting for Stein but will not vote for Clinton or Trump. I'm one of them.
We'd survive Trump & could recover
I don't think we'd survive Hillary.
Jill Stein if possible, but Never Hillary - Trump if necessary to defeat Hillary.
Hillary will follow her mentor Kissinger in Latin America
She has already done so in Haiti and Honduras, and, according to her laughing "Let the fun begin.." relative to bringing down Venezuela, would greatly enjoy returning to the years when dictators and generals killed and imprisoned and disappeared people, with the CIA guiding the way. She is confrontational, and harmful, to the whole world, and when you add the nuclear threat and her deliberately antagonizing Russia, Trump's isolationist talk and willingness to close many of our foreign bases sounds not just better, but positively good, if he can be believed.
He also says he's against TPP, for medical marijuana, for letting local communities ban fracking, for creating jobs fixing our infrastructure, and he's even said that Planned Parenthood has done a lot of good. Who knows what he'll actually do, or if he'll actually pursue his stupider or racist ideas and find a way to do them, but the only thing I'm sure Hillary will pursue and actually do is war. So my choice is to volunteer for Jill Stein and plan to vote for her, but if in November it seems the only way to keep Hillary from winning is to vote for Trump, I'll do that. Of course I hope, as do so many others, that her crimes catch up with her, and she has to drop out, but with even Bernie promoting her and ignoring all the bad (very painful, something I can't watch), it seems unlikely.
I think Bernie, who supports Obama's drone murders, possibly doesn't see or believe that she endangers the whole world, and that he is totally engrossed in maintaining relationships so he can accomplish things in the Senate, something a vengeful Hillary will probably prevent anyway. I would guess that for his own peace of mind he has to try to keep believing that his platform ideas will make a difference, but how he will manage that when Hillary is obviously turning the party Republican, I don't see. Although everybody still respects and loves Bernie for all he has done, at the same time he can see that they also think his support of Hillary is a terrible mistake. Yet he continues to rant that all the danger comes from Trump and sounds like he believes it.
Barbara Marquardt
In an emergency
she could always consult Sarah Palin for advice on how to deal with Russia.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Evening, Al.
Do you have any idea when US - or anyone's - nukes were last tested? Do these things even work?
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
Looks like 92 dr, Not long after the Wall fell and the Cold War
supposedly ended. That's why I was a little surprised at how prominent the use of nukes has become this century, since Bush and the neverending war started, and how policy has evolved in this manner. It's really crazy.
2016 North Korea
They have been doing underground testing for years. I will bet everything that so has the US. they just forget to mention it.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
France under Mitterrand (yet another faux “left” party & leader)
France under Mitterrand tested some at Moruroa Atoll in the Pacific South Seas in the mid-1990s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moruroa
French Polynesia erupted in protest, which resulted in a crackdown by the colony’s European masters.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/10716
As a slight aside...
The President does not have sole authority to launch a nuclear attack. There are two sets of codes: And authorization code and an enablement code. One enables weapons and one certifies that the command is from the President/Vice President, Joint Chiefs of Staff (who can veto any launch) and the Secretary of Defense. It is a no-lone zone.
No president can just open the football and decide to disappear a country on a whim. So. Hillary. Shut the fuck up.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Who appoints the '... Joint
Who appoints the '... Joint Chiefs of Staff (who can veto any launch) and the Secretary of Defense...'
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
They are not appointed by a single president...
Like the supreme court. I see where you are going with this. But I'm not interested in playing a game of devil's advocate. I merely pointed it out, as I get the feeling that a number of people are under the impression that the president has sole authority to launch a nuclear attack and I wanted take some of the wind out of Hillary's fear mongering.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
There are proposals to let field commanders decide
to use "tactical" nukes.
I wonder if Russia has a protocol
or can Putin just say bombs away if he thinks Russia is being threatened.
They have protocols but they have the nukes and will use
them. We have to count Russia, relative to the possession of and possible use of nuclear weapons among the crazies. Like everything now, we need a global people's movement to really stop this stuff.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/03/17/nucl-m17.html
Growing up in Honolulu in the 1950s it was clear even to us kids
that being way off far away from everything in the middle of the Pacific wouldn’t save us.
Just the opposite. Because of Pearl Harbor, Honolulu on Oahu would be one of the first cities to be vaporized.
... The implications of Putin
What would the American people think if the US failed to ready themselves for an actual attack, a threatened nuking, not a rag-tag bunch taking over planes with box knives to fly them into buildings, but the flattening/cratering/melting of large areas of the country, making huge areas highly radioactive and killing a lot more than hundreds of thousands of people immediately and many more more slowly and wretchedly with missiles far more powerful than the ones which took out whole cities full of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - knocking any survivors 'back into the Stone Age'?
Russia has a right to defend herself and her people or at least to take an attacker down with her - the purpose of Mutual Assured Destruction is to act as a mutual deterrent.
But with crazies in the White House accustomed to attacking smaller, more defenseless countries - unable to reach their own with an army - for fun and profit, the thought of any people in any country engaging in self-defence is 'staggering' to the world's largest corporate/military bully.
This is the part where you have to kick yourself for so many of us wondering why the German people lacked the sense to see what was coming and to stop the Nazis from taking their democracy and using their resources for planned world-wide domination, slavery and murder. What the heck do we think is the difference here, other than the American people having the advantage of knowing this has happened before, and still refusing to accept that 'it CAN happen here' and it's going to, unless it is stopped.
Edited for typo and punctuation.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
If US had been invaded
Like Russia was by Napoleon and Hitler, we'd be much closer to a nuke launch than we now are.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Nuclear Disarmament
because the preservation of humanity requires total abolition of all nuclear weapons.
And
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Breaking news!
http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition
Anti-nuclear organizations that oppose all nuclear power:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_organizations
Why does America oppose survival of the human species?
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Good information, thanks.
"Why does America oppose survival of the human species?"
Because PROFITS!
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Profit Now, Die Later
That seems to sum it up. Especially when the .001% in their gilded enclaves will be the last to go (if a crazed and desperate mass of starving humanity doesn't storm them before then).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
And nuclear power plants, too
They aren't properly maintained, spent fuel rods are tucked away all over the place, and many are on fault lines or in flood plains. Brilliant.
The IBEW(!!!) just got Diablo Canyon closing postponed
from 2018 to 2025. Because union jobs. Risk of environmental disaster be damned.
You probably didn't hear this, because it was only in the union newsletter - and they slanted it as a Good Thing, because Jobs. (My SO is Local 103, retired.)
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
... Why does America oppose
Perhaps because corporations are not human?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I thought Obama
was all about getting rid of nukes? Yeah right. Just like the Mad Bomber and the Democrats are about anything other then setting the world on fire for profit and global dominion cause we are America the good. Nuke them drone them bomb them that will show the world whose the biggest bad ass boss. Psycho killers qu'est ce que c'est? Killary she's a real live wire so are all of these by-partisan killers.
As usual, Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth
He recently gave a speech about how the world needs to remove the number of nuclear weapons, yet he has been spending $1 Trillion on building up the US' nuclear weapons including mini nukes that won't cause 'as much' damage.
Hillary isn't running to continue Obama's 3rd term, she's running on continuing Bush' 5th term in regards the PNAC plan.
joe provided this link in tonight's EBs.
It goes into detail about not only Hillary's foreign policy, but Bill's also. I had forgotten what he had done during his presidency.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/27/the-fear-of-hillarys-foreign-policy/
I think it's safe to say that every president has committed war crimes, especially the ones after the Nuremberg trials which states that invading any country that hasn't threatened another is the ultimate war crime.
How many countries has the US invaded since then?
And for what?
Sure Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons, but who gave them to him? Our country. And the troops did find WMDs in Iraq, but those were ours.
Hillary didn't said why Assad has to go. Just that he does. Sure we were told that he was killing his people, but we were also told that babies were being thrown out of incubators, Saddam had WMDs and they couldn't wait to invade him in case he created a mushroom cloud.
Again, which country has created two mushroom clouds?
Hillary's stating calmly that she has no problem using nukes on Iran should scare the shit out of her supporters.
If Trump said that, they would point to that statement and say that's why he can't become president.
Sigh.
Another great diary, Big Al
Edit to add this link showing every military intervention that Hillary has been in favor of
http://www.empireslayer.org/2013/11/hilary-clinton-pro-war-and-imperiali...
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Americans and Europeans being prep'ed for war like Iraq
For about several years now, there has been a steady stream of anti-Putin/Russian propaganda. Has really accelerated with DNC emails. The same pattern and techniques are being used that the Bush regime along with the mass media used to get the American people to support the invasion of Iraq including such notables as Hillary Clinton. For example, as with the Iraq invasion any dissenting voices have been totally removed from mass media outlets. The only recognized voice in the popular mass media was Phil Donahue, and he was fired in short order. Stephen Cohen is and will be totally absent from the mass media and from the pages of major American newspapers. We have the creation of a demonic cartoon villain who like Saddam is being actively compared to Hitler. Putin like Saddam threatens the entire world. I would add in propaganda that that has gone from demonizing Putin to demonizing all Russians in the same ways by the way, as Trump has demonized Mexicans and Muslims literally use the same script. We are told by self righteous orange people that we must not demonize entire religions and ethnic groups while they have begun to freely do the same. There were attacks on people resisting the Iraq invasion which are now being used by the Dem establishment such as "Putin lackey", traitor, and undermining national security. Attempting to doubt the role of NATO leads to charges of supporting Trump/peaceniks.
And you know, constant propaganda over time works. At the time of the Iraq invasion, Americans supported the action by upwards by of 70%. Kudos by the way to many members of the House who opposed Bush resolution for war.
And this is happening in Europe also.
In many ways this is not about what Putin has done or not done (mostly not done), but about using war for profit and power. If it wasn't Russian, eventually it would have China. This is the gift that Obama has handed to Clinton.
Going by what (little) I've
Going by what (little) I've read, both Russia and China are currently being surrounded by missiles and both threatened as nuclear targets - getting all set up for President Hillary and the final stages of the hostile corporate take-over of Earth.
Vote against both evils, for survival and for the common good! If President Bernie is not possible, vote non--corporate, non-psychopathic Green for President Jill Stein.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Her Heinous thinks Trump is bothered by tweets?
why does she keep goading right along with him? Two juveniles measuring dick size. I would say only in the USA, but that would not be true.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Oh, Jeezus
Just heard on NPR that Clinton is campaigning with the promise of "the biggest investment in jobs since World War II"!
Is this lunatic really trying to sell world war as a jobs program?!
She's going to replay WWII with herself in the starring role reprising FDR except this time she beats the evil Russkies.
Put herself in the herstory books, she will, relegating philandering Bill to a footnote in the process to boot.
No. Just no.
If we don't start some serious anti-war shit like yesterday, it's too late.
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
Cut to visual of Hillary Clinton in heroic pose
with “Ride of the Valkyries” playing in the background.
Wow
The "since World War II" clause is the clue that tells us her plan is to ask for a big boost in military spending, ala Ronald Reagan, as her primary way to create a war economy boom.
Investing in the military has historically been the universally recognized best way to cover all bases, politically, always guaranteed to give the economy a huge stimulus, at least until things all go terribly wrong as a result of miscalculation, hubris, etc.
James Kroeger
Keynesian investment in the military & spy agency infrastructure
Not only does it create a lot of lucrative contracts and jobs; by gaming the siting and security-clearance criteria you can pretty much make sure the benefits mainly go to a narrow, predominantly right-wing, nationalistic, g0d-and-guns demographic.
Hey, why waste the public's
Hey, why waste the public's tax dollars on infrastructure rebuilding the long-neglected country and the real, ground-level economy with living-wage jobs when it's all going to be blown up anyway with Mutual Assured Destruction? (Same with the potential for history books written about her - and any chance of shopping outside Hillary's bunker, assuming it survives.)
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Nuclear weapons turn tactics into strategy
The myth of "tactical nuclear weapons" connotes a non-entity. There is no such thing as tactical nukes; because, once employed, escalation becomes immediate and massive. A nuclear country allowing itself to be nuked without responding in kind does not exist.
John Pilger...
http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence-
Saw that.
It's true. This is worse than Vietnam, when the people protested. This is worse than Iraq, when the people protested.
Where the hell are the protests?
The revolution will not be televised
Or mentioned on radio, or printed in any media. The Corpocrats control the public channels of communication, and they do not allow any mention of anything they do not approve of.
When did you last hear about Moral Mondays?
Gulfgal's heartbreaking story of a peace vigil that slowly withered and died was made possible by absence of mention - nobody knew it was going on, and nobody knew when it was over.
How much did you really hear about the protests at the RepubliCrat and DemoCorpoCrat Conventions - and how did you hear about them?
You see how it works? Even when there are protests, they are trees falling in a faraway forest - no one hears, no one knows.
This is perhaps the most important thing we have to change.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
It is time for a peace movement
...to take a more active role in the revolution. Not only are wars promoted for the profit of arms manufacturers, it is also about oil companies and their markets. Creating wars to build pipelines and expand markets. Turkey and Russia are discussing a new pipeline to Europe.
All I can say is we are in a mess. What are we doing in this hand basket and where are we going?
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
And we are trying to take out Assad
So Saudi Arabia can compete with Russia for the European market by building a pipeline through Syria.
Corbett Report
Now that is fucking scary. I grew up under the cloud of fear called mutually assured destruction, and now I have to make a choice between two individuals who feel a nuclear war is winnable.
We are more than screwed....I can't believe we haven't resorted to the proverbial pitchforks and torches. It is obvious a political revolution will never happen until the two party system is destroyed, the media is hamstrung, and the MIC squashed like a bug.
Too many of us have lived a life under this fear of self annihilation, and the subsequent "Who gives a shit? We're all gonna get roasted, or frozen in a nuclear winter anyway"attitude. This imposition of power and fear by TPTB will assure that the youth, and the young voters are just as disengaged in politics as many of my generation is. Why vote when it really doesn't matter?? The politicians tell us what ever it takes to get elected, and then turn their backs to serve their donors.
Don't vote for evil - vote
Don't vote for evil - vote against both evils!
Failing any Bernie miracle, vote Jill Stein. If enough people do that - and Indies outnumber both Dem and Repub voters, many at the least uncomfortable with the pathological corporate/billionaire 'choices' offered - guess who gets the most votes?
The people trying to make you believe the corporate-owned two-party trade-off scam is the only way to go are conning people into locking themselves into a box they can easily escape. And this is the last chance to do so.
But the stolen Dem nomination cannot be left as a 'done deal' as has been done through so many elections. If it's not stopped now, it will never be. Not under corporate law OR martial law.
Why vote for global destruction when you can vote for democracy and survival instead?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Scary woman
"We came, we saw, he died! Hahahahaha" - A certain psychopath we know.
Love is my religion.
The Nuclear Weapons Factor
Is the clinching argument for why I won't vote for Clinton. Her desire to stoke tensions with Russia, even using it as a campaign ploy to distract from the DNC leaks, makes it frankly immoral to vote for her.
"You argue that you don't want to throw away your vote. That's right. Don't vote for freedom - you might not get it. Vote for slavery - you have a cinch on that." Eugene Debs