Russian Trolls Fooled Sanders Voters, Including on Here

Submitted by mj55 on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 9:22am

In the last months before the 2016 election, I was among the peole driven off Kos because of the pro-Clinton trolls. I found C99 to be a haven of sorts, a safe place to critique the Democratic party and its machinations, the corporate loyalties of Hillary Clinton, and to promote my preferred candidate, Bernie Sanders.

Then I began to notice a trend: Some posters on here were pro-Russian, and even giving rationalizations for voting for Trump. Seriously fake news stories got front page play. I stopped posting on here. But it wasn't just me, it wasn't in my mind, and it wasn't just on here.

Huffington Post has a piece by Ryan Grim and Jason Cherkis about this phenomenon. It isn't comfortable reading. But we've all seen it, if we're honest about it. We've all clicked on and passed on fake news stories generated in Russia or Macedonia. We've all been played.

Tags:

#Bernie_Sanders

# Democrats #2016

# Democrats #2016 #BernieSanders #HillaryClinton

#Russian_Hackers

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 9:29am

I think that many people see the mocking of

the whole "lets blame the Russians" ploy of the DNC as being somehow pro-Russian, and pro-Trump. I don't think I have seen very much here at all that was either pro-Russian, or pro-Trump...merely pro-reality (and anti-fiction).

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 2:38pm

Apparently, it was Huffpo that got played by hoaxers.

@Bisbonian

gjohnsit sets it out in his OP here: http://caucus99percent.com/content/them-russians-them-russians

Meanwhile, the essayist posted the essay before 10:30 this morning and has not posted on this thread since. I know there are an almost infinite number of possible explanations. Still, when something like that happens, questions arise in my mind.

Forgive me, Bisbonian. I replied to you only to make sure this info got posted near the top of the thread. It was your geography, and not your post, that attracted my reply.

Submitted by irishking on Mon, 03/13/2017 - 5:54am

hit- and- run job

@HenryAWallace

thx for pointing that out.

big warning- ENERGY SINK AHEAD

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 03/13/2017 - 11:29pm

The first time I posted on a large political board,

@irishking

I did not know that the person who started a thread was expected to reply for at least the first hour or two. I posted my first thread starter just before I went to work. By the time that I got home from work, the thread was locked because of how many posters had posted only to vilify me for not replying to posts. So, I try to be understanding because I still have flashbacks. But, this is not a newbie and, by now, anyone who was ever going to reply would have replied.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 9:17am

Technically, mj55 did reply about 8 hours later,

@HenryAWallace
but only to say GBCW neener neener neener. I think they set that up deliberately so they could go off whining self-righteously.

Posters like that, who needs?

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 2:46pm

Either that was after this post

@TheOtherMaven

http://caucus99percent.com/comment/248735#comment-248735 or I missed it.

Either way, I really can't blame him or her. I can understand why anyone who did an OP like that would have been too embarrassed to hang around after proof that the only ones fooled were the ones who took the fake Russian trolls at face value.

Okay, I am going to look for the GBCW post now. Should be fun.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 8:14pm

@Bisbonian

@Bisbonian

... I understand why they piss off the oligarchs. What I don't understand is why I or any other member of the 99% ought to care. Explain to me where my anti-Russian attitude ought to spring from. ...

Putin places his people's pensions over the profits of American interests and (gasp) over their own normal-sized military budget, even at a time when ravening hordes are massing on their borders and pointing missiles at them, not that an increased military budget would make any difference.

So, aren't you angry at the Russians now?

—

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.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 1:09am

@Bisbonian Interestingly, these days

@Bisbonian Interestingly, these days you can only be pro- or anti- something. You can't agree on one or a few things, and disagree on the rest.

For instance, I can't agree with Vladimir Putin that a hot war between the United States and Russia would be a bad idea without being a "Russian troll"--or maybe fooled by one. What would that make me again, a "useful idiot?" Anyway, I can't agree with Putin on anything at all or else I'm his loyal subject. Hail Hydra.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 9:33am

We're supposed to take the Huffington Post seriously?

Really?

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:30am

I got banned from Huffy in 2007 for posting certain

@TheOtherMaven truths about Arianna's time in London. Markos' role model.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:55am

PS I have always found it somewhat amusing that

@TheOtherMaven some of the most prominent "liberal blogs" were started by ex-Republicans.

Submitted by shaharazade on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 2:27pm

That makes sense as

@LaFeminista some of the most prominent Democratic pols are ex-Republicans. The Mad Bomber, Hillary herself being the first to come to mind. Then there is the darling of the so called progressives Elisabeth Warren. The great partisan divide is just political theater. I find this Russia did it garbage is so convoluted and absurd that I cannot believe it's swallowed by rational people.

As a former reader of The Guardian I noticed that the Putin is the devil bs. started when the paper went corporate and 'New Labour' lost to the Torie pig head fucker. Corbyn's popularity was a threat to the neoliberal Blairite poodles. Snowden's living in Russia seemed to accelerate The Guardians decent into being a propagandist neoconservative rag. Richard Wolfe the political hack and plagiarist covering the farce of the American election was the final straw for me.

'Fake News' or news speak, abounds in our brave new globalized world.To me it's any publication online or off that is owned by the likes of Bezos or any propaganda organ of the global oligarchical collectivists. NATO is another part of the equation to vilify Russia and Putin. This has been a long term geopolitical campaign to reheat the cold war.

Putin is just another ex-spook oligarch. The list of countries we Americans are supposed to hate and consider an enemy to the USA! is pretty revealing. 'He lives in Brazil' or why don't you just move the Venezuela or Ecuador, is pretty much a bi-partisan nationalistic response by the believer's of the imperialistic USA! USA! USA!. The ruling class, be they Republican's or Demorat's are complicit. The story lines put out by their propagandist's are getting more and more absurd.

Geopolitical reality these days boils down to the fact checking the concocted reality between the internecine power struggles of the duopoly and the global . All the dueling truths are based on a story that has no relationship to anything but the story they use to keep us all living in fear and outrage of the other. Seems to be working pretty good as Putin and Trump are now the new enemy. Crowd control. I can't follow the dark story line anymore as it requires a suspension of belief that my lying eyes deny.

As Muhammad Ali once said “I Ain't Got No Quarrel With The VietCong... " just substitute the Russians and that's how I feel about this hating Putin bs. and the endless wars against our latest enemy.

“My conscience won't let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what? They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn't put no dogs on me, they didn't rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father... Shoot them for what? How do I got to go shoot them, poor little black people, little babies, children, and women? How can I shoot them poor people? Just take me to jail.”
― Muhammad Ali

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:07pm

Why? The most recent Democratic nominee was a

@LaFeminista

former Republican. The most recent Democratic President described his policies as those of a moderate Republican of the 1980s.

That was the whole strategy of the DNC, turn Democrats into pro-choice, pro-equal rights, pro p.c. Republicans.

caucus99percent.com/content/liberals-must-not-say-liberal-left-progressive-or-populist

Submitted by Oldest Son Of A... on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:39pm

Are You Sure?

@LaFeminista

"PS I have always found it somewhat amusing that some of the most prominent "liberal blogs" were started by ex-Republicans."

What makes you so sure they are really "Ex-Republicans" and not "Deep Moles?"

—

"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:00pm

Perhaps a slight adjustment to your comment

@LaFeminista would show why.

New
PS I have always found it somewhat amusing that

@TheOtherMaven some of the most prominent "neoliberal blogs" were started by ex-Republicans

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by duckpin on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 9:36am

Don't confuse seeing through the capitalist BS as

being pro-Russia, itself a mafia type capitalist country.

The Huffington Post? Seriously? There are a few reliable sources out there and this is not one of them.

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by Lookout on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 9:37am

Perhaps you're being played by the huff and puff

The $hill is a war monger. I don't need any hacker to convince me. All I have to do is look at Libya, Syria, and the arms agreements for Clinton foundation donations.

I think the deep state is at odds with T-rump because his election upset the war with Russia cart that the $hill and the neo-libs were driving. Blaming hackers or trolls and suggesting the c99 community is pro-Russian is a shallow analysis from my point of view. I think most folks here (who voted) seemed to go with Stein not T-rump.

—

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 9:42am

Who is the "we" you speak of?

We've all clicked on and passed on fake news stories generated in Russia or Macedonia. We've all been played.

Are you saying The Facebook and The Huffington Post are serious news outlets? I don't think so. They are good at entertainment, selling products, and whipping the masses in to near hysteria, as far as I can tell.

I still can't figure out why Russia is the enemy, more so than the CIA? Probably someone wants to say "read The Facebook and HuffPo to find out". No, I prefer being whipped in to a peaceful state, rather than blind rage, but thanks anyway. Namaste

Peace

Submitted by Steven D on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 1:30pm

Us vs. Russia

@eyo @eyo

US Military Budget: greater than $600 Billion (that we know of)

Russia Military budget: less than $70 Billion

US foreign military bases = around 800

Russia foreign military bases = 12

The only thing that makes Russia any kind of threat at all is its nukes, and considering we have them surrounded with more and better delivery systems, I don't see Russia starting a nuclear war by ordering a first strike unless its territory is invaded, do you?

The US on the other hand ...

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:47pm

Russia's defense budget is set to $45.15 billion for 2017

@Steven D
Russia can't create money from thin air by creating debt at next to zero cost to pay current debt like the US can. It has to actually sell or create something tangible in order to earn the money it spends and to pay debt/interest with.

It is interesting how the government of Russia is responding to the cut in revenues caused by low oil prices. (The American sanctions placed on the country have had a lessor and even a net positive effect in many sectors of the economy by forcing changes.)

Russia slashes military spending as revenues shrink
The protracted slump in oil prices mean the government is no longer able to finance its reform of the defense industry at previous levels.

As the economy continues to struggle under the weight of low oil prices and sanctions, Russian authorities have decided to cut defense spending by 1,000 billion rubles ($15.89 billion), or by approximately 30 percent.
...
Overall, spending on national defense in the federal budget for 2017 is envisaged at 2,840 billion rubles ($45.15 billion), or 3.3 percent of GDP.

“When revenues are falling, the task of reaching a compromise between different recipients of the budget pie fades into the background. What matters is to ensure, albeit on a reduced scale, the operation of the national economy and the state in all the key areas,” says Alexei Kalachev, an expert analyst with Moscow investmenrt company Finam.
...
“The main lesson in budget planning to be learnt from the budget of the final years of the USSR is the danger of excessive military spending,” says Sergei Khestanov, a macroeconomics adviser to the head of the Otkrytie Broker financial company.

Khestanov believes this is the reason the government has decided to cut defense spending by a third, despite the fact that the reduction will come as a blow to many defense industry enterprises.
...
“The only exception is a sharp rise in the 2017 spending on social policy, which has to do with the presidential election cycle: Before elections butter is far more important than guns,” says Alexei Kalachev.
...

Submitted by Linda Wood on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 7:36pm

Wow.

@CB
What a government without a printing press for war looks like. Like common sense.

#5.1 Russia can't create money from thin air by creating debt at next to zero cost to pay current debt like the US can. It has to actually sell or create something tangible in order to earn the money it spends and to pay debt/interest with. It is interesting how the government of Russia is responding to the cut in revenues caused by low oil prices. (The American sanctions placed on the country have had a lessor and even a net positive effect in many sectors of the economy by forcing changes.) Russia slashes military spending as revenues shrink The protracted slump in oil prices mean the government is no longer able to finance its reform of the defense industry at previous levels. As the economy continues to struggle under the weight of low oil prices and sanctions, Russian authorities have decided to cut defense spending by 1,000 billion rubles ($15.89 billion), or by approximately 30 percent. ... Overall, spending on national defense in the federal budget for 2017 is envisaged at 2,840 billion rubles ($45.15 billion), or 3.3 percent of GDP. “When revenues are falling, the task of reaching a compromise between different recipients of the budget pie fades into the background. What matters is to ensure, albeit on a reduced scale, the operation of the national economy and the state in all the key areas,” says Alexei Kalachev, an expert analyst with Moscow investmenrt company Finam. ... “The main lesson in budget planning to be learnt from the budget of the final years of the USSR is the danger of excessive military spending,” says Sergei Khestanov, a macroeconomics adviser to the head of the Otkrytie Broker financial company. Khestanov believes this is the reason the government has decided to cut defense spending by a third, despite the fact that the reduction will come as a blow to many defense industry enterprises. ... “The only exception is a sharp rise in the 2017 spending on social policy, which has to do with the presidential election cycle: Before elections butter is far more important than guns,” says Alexei Kalachev. ...

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:31am

Who? What?

Submitted by dance you monster on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:33am

In fairness, . . .

. . . during the 2016 election season a lot of crazy stuff was aired. Some of the attacks on Hillary were erroneous -- what you and the Dem establishment are calling "fake news." Remarkably some of it was true. And some of that "fake news" was coming from the U.S.'s own major media.

And even the article (from Huffpo, seriously?) you cite has this little nugget:

The first tidal wave of spam was mostly anti-Bernie, Pearce recalled, posted by Clinton backers. (David Brock’s Clinton-backing super PAC had likely paid for some portion of those.) But after Clinton became the Democratic nominee in July, Pearce noticed a switch to anti-Hillary messages with links to fake news and to real news with obnoxious pop-up ads.

So I hope you'll pardon me if I don't get all hot and bothered about how Hillary was wronged.

Most c99ers didn't bandy about the loonier stuff, but in any forum a few commenters will have found something kinda nutty that they just have to share. That's why we have critical reasoning skills, so we can weigh the record ourselves. And the vast majority of critiques of Hillary at c99p addressed her tendency to pander, to lie, to push this nation into wars, to favor the interests of the wealthy over those of the common man/woman. None of that was fake news.

Were we at c99p played? Maybe a few individuals were. Not the site, though, and not the majority of people on it. Compare that record with any other political forum on the toobz. Compare that record with dKos today.

I'm kinda happy here. You don't have to be.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:37am

well said

@dance you monster

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 1:15am

@dance you monster the words "fake news"

@dance you monster the words "fake news" were created and brought to me by purveyors of fake news, otherwise known as propaganda or lies, so....I can't take it particularly seriously.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by PriceRip on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:39am

The title is a bit over the top.

I have a different point of view. It is impossible to ascertain the true nature of a comment or an article in a finite span of time.

Price's corollary to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:46am

Alberts reply

@PriceRip Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality.

Submitted by PriceRip on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:00am

I like Albert

@LaFeminista

but he was (at that time) a bit "old school". To be more direct: It took time for the community to realize that "hidden variables" was not going to cut it. The classical approach to determinism is truly dead and the stochastic nature of nature (or as I prefer: Reality) is most likely true. Near the end Albert had to admit he was not quite on target.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:11am

You're the Physicist I am the Chemist/fluid dynamist

@PriceRip @PriceRip even chaos can be predictable

Submitted by PriceRip on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:44am

We should team teach a class.

@LaFeminista

If you ever get bored with doing actual work you should come out to Medford and we could workup a routine for the OLLI crowd.

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 2:48pm

and I am the Walrus

@LaFeminista

Submitted by Steven D on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 1:32pm

Over the top

@PriceRip - nice pun.

—

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 10:47am

Maybe; maybe not.

I live in a blue state. I never advocated anywhere for voting for Trump. I advocated here for voting for Jill Stein. Had I lived in a purple state, however, I might have voted for Trump myself rather than subject the USA to the long-term effects of another victory by another New Democrat Presidential nominee--and possibly the most rightist New Democrat in the nation; I can't say for certain. Leftists I had known on another board for years did advocate for voting for Trump. Moreover, the fact that establishment media published something the government wants us to believe doesn't mean it's true. Have we forgotten the media run up to the Iraq War and other media duplicity?

It's the content of posts that I see on a message board, not the poster or the nation in which the poster is allegedly located. The content of a post either makes sense to me because it is well-supported and/or welloreasoned and rings true, or it doesn't. In either case, the location, citizenship and motive of the poster is irrelevant. I am not going to reject a true post because I assume it comes from Russian or lose my analytical skills because I assume a post comes from an USian.

On a message board, I am very well aware that anonymous posters could be anyone from anywhere, posting with any agenda or no agenda, other than hobby. For that matter, I have no idea who or where you are or what your agenda might be. I know only that your post is not making much sense to me. For instance, if you left this board (or any board) because people advocated voting for Trump, exactly how did you get played? Or are you using "we" politely when you really mean that everyone who continued to post here got played while you did not?

And why do you assume that people who may be more willing than you to continue to post where people have differing views got played? The posters on this board seem very intelligent to me. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of posters here voted for Stein or stayed home, with full awareness of what that might mean for Hillary at the polls. I assume, but do not know, that, similar to me, they believe that, as bad as electing President Not Hillary might be, electing Hillary would be worse. And they believe that because of what they know about Hillary and New Democrats generally, not because of any post made about Trump.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 1:25am

@HenryAWallace For me, it was because of

@HenryAWallace @HenryAWallace For me, it was because of this:

(if you haven't watched it before, watch it at the point where Hillary actually starts talking--it's from a speech at the American Legion, and it starts at 4:30)

and secondarily, this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/18/the-faux-fracas-in-nevada-how-a-r...

The first one made it impossible for me to support Hillary Clinton ever, under any circumstances (and I'm still shocked that anybody over 35 feels differently--anyone who remembers the Cold War should know that what she's saying in that speech is reckless to the point of lunacy, and the fact that she doesn't mind that--in fact seems to relish it--is, frankly, terrifying.)

The second one was the bridge-burner for the Democratic Party. I can never support the Democratic Party again, under any circumstances, and if people thought carefully about what that chair-throwing fabrication implied, they wouldn't truck with the Democratic Party either.

I live in a blue state. I never advocated anywhere for voting for Trump. I advocated here for voting for Jill Stein. Had I lived in a purple state, however, I might have voted for Trump myself rather than subject the USA to the long-term effects of another victory by another New Democrat Presidential nominee--and possibly the most rightist New Democrat in the nation; I can't say for certain. Leftists I had known on another board for years did advocate for voting for Trump. Moreover, the fact that establishment media published something the government wants us to believe doesn't mean it's true. Have we forgotten the media run up to the Iraq War and other media duplicity? It's the content of posts that I see on a message board, not the poster or the nation in which the poster is allegedly located. The content of a post either makes sense to me because it is well-supported and/or welloreasoned and rings true, or it doesn't. In either case, the location, citizenship and motive of the poster is irrelevant. I am not going to reject a true post because I assume it comes from Russian or lose my analytical skills because I assume a post comes from an USian. On a message board, I am very well aware that anonymous posters could be anyone from anywhere, posting with any agenda or no agenda, other than hobby. For that matter, I have no idea who or where you are or what your agenda might be. I know only that your post is not making much sense to me. For instance, if you left this board (or any board) because people advocated voting for Trump, exactly how did you get played? Or are you using "we" politely when you really mean that everyone who continued to post here got played while you did not? And why do you assume that people who may be more willing than you to continue to post where people have differing views got played? The posters on this board seem very intelligent to me. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of posters here voted for Stein or stayed home, with full awareness of what that might mean for Hillary at the polls. I assume, but do not know, that, similar to me, they believe that, as bad as electing President Not Hillary might be, electing Hillary would be worse. And they believe that because of what they know about Hillary and New Democrats generally, not because of any post made about Trump.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:11am

heh, that needs some pushback, I speak for myself only

1. I was never driven away from dailykos because they loved Obama and Hillary too much. I was driven away by their tribalism, specifically the tribalism supported between black folks and white folks. I can be very specific in that but am in no mood for that stuff. I left for that reason alone in Sept. 2015.

2. Sanders declared his intent to run for President end of April 2015. His message clearly got my attention and support.

3. The Black Lives Matter movement, which originated in 2013 as a response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Micheal Brown and Eric Garner, had my full support when they consistantly demonstrated against the deaths of African American by police actions and in police custody or prisons.

4. In the summer of 2015 Black Lives Matter became involved in the 2016 presidential campaign. I personally felt that the Black Lives Matter movement got co-opted by Hillary supporters to go against Sanders, based on racial issues that BLM and people brought up against Sanders. You couldn't criticize the Democrats anymore for using the race bait against Sanders. Being for Sanders became almost a sign of being anti-black and racist. I left dailykos for that as well.

5. I never hated Hillary Clinton, but I didn't like her much at all, I was against her foreign policies way before she ran for President, I didn't like her biography coming to power on the co-tails of her husbands political status. I didn't like her specific brand of feminism, which she played out heavily on her relations to women in foreign countries. I doubted quite a bit that women in other countries loved her as much as she seemed to believe and claimed.

6. I seriously started to be opposed to Hillary Clinton when I realized her actions and reactions to the political developments in the ME. I have no trust at all in her capacities to work for peace and detested her war hawkishness.

7. I never hated Obama, but I was surprised and deeply disappointed in his campaign promises and what he delivered when he got elected. I was not caught up in his supposed "charme". I was releaved he could talk better than GWBush (remember, we were starved out of politicians who could talk thoughtfully and in longer sentences). I still think Obama is capable of expressing situations in context and with sensitivities others are lacking. That doesn't mean that his policies, especially foreign ones, clearly were not horrible and it was a complete betrayal to see how he failed to protect Americans in their civil and human rights internally from abuses. He was supposed to be a constitutional rights lawyer, but consistantly closed his eyes when the constitution was violated by power players inside the US. His foreign war policies were a slap in the face and a punch in the stomach. Unacceptable.

None of this has anything to do with being pro-Russian. Mr. Putin was not on the radar at all since the recent "Putinphobia" with the "cold war intentions of Russia messing with the US" etc. I was never "against Russia", especially not after 1989. I was amazed and suprised. I didn't care for Russia and didn't understand til recently what kind of difficulties the collapse of the Sovjet Union has caused to the Russians as an united empire. I really don't care much about Putin either. This whole shebang is US caused. For all the wrong reasons.

So, get it in your head, not everybody is pro- or anti-Russian. We can be anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, pro-Sanders, anti-EU or pro-EU and anti-NATO or pro-NATO without considering dear Mr. Putin and his Russian empire much. I don't think Germans in the last twenty to thirty years felt ever threatened by Russia.

When I ended up here at the EB, more or less because I wanted to continue to read Joe's EB, I didn't come here because I was pro-Russian. I found a little community which was in its communication style tender, warm, musical and politically pretty down to exact facts and down to earth. I liked that.

Of course I realized and it amazed me a bit to see a lot of emotional "hate" (instead of just political strong disagreements) vis a vis the Democratic Party, H Clinton, Obama, the Republicans) and then surprise, surprise relatively few critical reactions to Trump. I was quite a bit blown away that some posters here considered seriously to vote for Trump. I listened to all their reasons and thought to myself "no, that can't be reason enough to accept a guy like Trump".
Again this has nothing to do with being pro-Russian, even if RT news articles are very often quoted (may be they have a point quite often, no need to be against RT articles and commentators at all, just because some people think they are a propaganda tool, biased and fake news). I like quite a lot of RT's regulars. This doesn't make me pro-Russian or a fake-news believing idiot (so help me God.)

And for the so-called fake news stories and us falling for them Heh, may be you can't imagine that some folks don't read facebook and don't twitter for hours to get the latest farts of any politician.

So, now to finish up my rant, I have to admit that I think Putin is as cute as Obama. Both have 'it'. I hope that clarifies everything. /s

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:05am

Indeed it is possible to have more than one thought in

@mimi your head at any given time and being against something/someone does not mean you are automatically supporting something/someone else.

Personally there was never any danger of me voting for Trump. Putin is another I dislike intensely. However the sense of betrayal by the Democratic Party over the years caused me to leave both the tone deaf clique that was Kos and refuse to side with the DP until they sort their shit out, as likely as hell freezing over as that is.

1. I was never driven away from dailykos because they loved Obama and Hillary too much. I was driven away by their tribalism, specifically the tribalism supported between black folks and white folks. I can be very specific in that but am in no mood for that stuff. I left for that reason alone in Sept. 2015.

2. Sanders declared his intent to run for President end of April 2015. His message clearly got my attention and support.

3. The Black Lives Matter movement, which originated in 2013 as a response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Micheal Brown and Eric Garner, had my full support when they consistantly demonstrated against the deaths of African American by police actions and in police custody or prisons.

4. In the summer of 2015 Black Lives Matter became involved in the 2016 presidential campaign. I personally felt that the Black Lives Matter movement got co-opted by Hillary supporters to go against Sanders, based on racial issues that BLM and people brought up against Sanders. You couldn't criticize the Democrats anymore for using the race bait against Sanders. Being for Sanders became almost a sign of being anti-black and racist. I left dailykos for that as well.

5. I never hated Hillary Clinton, but I didn't like her much at all, I was against her foreign policies way before she ran for President, I didn't like her biography coming to power on the co-tails of her husbands political status. I didn't like her specific brand of feminism, which she played out heavily on her relations to women in foreign countries. I doubted quite a bit that women in other countries loved her as much as she seemed to believe and claimed.

6. I seriously started to be opposed to Hillary Clinton when I realized her actions and reactions to the political developments in the ME. I have no trust at all in her capacities to work for peace and detested her war hawkishness.

7. I never hated Obama, but I was surprised and deeply disappointed in his campaign promises and what he delivered when he got elected. I was not caught up in his supposed "charme". I was releaved he could talk better than GWBush (remember, we were starved out of politicians who could talk thoughtfully and in longer sentences). I still think Obama is capable of expressing situations in context and with sensitivities others are lacking. That doesn't mean that his policies, especially foreign ones, clearly were not horrible and it was a complete betrayal to see how he failed to protect Americans in their civil and human rights internally from abuses. He was supposed to be a constitutional rights lawyer, but consistantly closed his eyes when the constitution was violated by power players inside the US. His foreign war policies were a slap in the face and a punch in the stomach. Unacceptable.

None of this has anything to do with being pro-Russian. Mr. Putin was not on the radar at all since the recent "Putinphobia" with the "cold war intentions of Russia messing with the US" etc. I was never "against Russia", especially not after 1989. I was amazed and suprised. I didn't care for Russia and didn't understand til recently what kind of difficulties the collapse of the Sovjet Union has caused to the Russians as an united empire. I really don't care much about Putin either. This whole shebang is US caused. For all the wrong reasons.

So, get it in your head, not everybody is pro- or anti-Russian. We can be anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, pro-Sanders, anti-EU or pro-EU and anti-NATO or pro-NATO without considering dear Mr. Putin and his Russian empire much. I don't think Germans in the last twenty to thirty years felt ever threatened by Russia.

When I ended up here at the EB, more or less because I wanted to continue to read Joe's EB, I didn't come here because I was pro-Russian. I found a little community which was in its communication style tender, warm, musical and politically pretty down to exact facts and down to earth. I liked that.

Of course I realized and it amazed me a bit to see a lot of emotional "hate" (instead of just political strong disagreements) vis a vis the Democratic Party, H Clinton, Obama, the Republicans) and then surprise, surprise relatively few critical reactions to Trump. I was quite a bit blown away that some posters here considered seriously to vote for Trump. I listened to all their reasons and thought to myself "no, that can't be reason enough to accept a guy like Trump".
Again this has nothing to do with being pro-Russian, even if RT news articles are very often quoted (may be they have a point quite often, no need to be against RT articles and commentators at all, just because some people think they are a propaganda tool, biased and fake news). I like quite a lot of RT's regulars. This doesn't make me pro-Russian or a fake-news believing idiot (so help me God.)

And for the so-called fake news stories and us falling for them Heh, may be you can't imagine that some folks don't read facebook and don't twitter for hours to get the latest farts of any politician.

So, now to finish up my rant, I have to admit that I think Putin is as cute as Obama. Both have 'it'. I hope that clarifies everything. /s

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:30am

I am sure you have a long history following

@LaFeminista
the politics of Democrats and Republicans as well as the ones surrounding US-EU-Russian relations. I was only like a little girl stumbling into Dailykos, the Democrats and the US political landscape like Alice in Wonderland, ending up here, with no historical or political knowledge at all. I am always up in "wondering" about everything. I just blow in my thoughts, because it's so much fun to talk to you guys and gals. Thanks for your comments and essays here.

Have a good weekend. We have the first sunshine days in months here in grey Hamburg. Spring is in the air.

I can't help to tease you:
[video:https://youtu.be/odjBOC2YATY]

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Deja on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 1:01pm

I dislike Bibi & The House of Saud more than I dislike Putin

@LaFeminista I also dislike Killary, Kissinger, Albright, Cheney, etc. more than I dislike Putin. But that doesn't make me pro Putin. The republicans are the ones who had a Putin crush back when Obama was sitting prez.

This essayist must confuse the in-depth discussion on this site of the bullshit we've been spoon fed about Crimea and Ukraine, and the reality of the situation in that region, with being pro Putin/Russia. Spin, spin, spin, and twist, twist, twist.

Submitted by duckpin on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 1:20pm

You grasp the point that Cohen overlooks - or hopes

@Deja his readers don't notice. Likud is worse; the Saudi dictatorship is worse; lots of countries are worse; but, Putin's Russia is still bad.

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:32pm

@duckpin

@duckpin

... Likud is worse; the Saudi dictatorship is worse; lots of countries are worse; but, Putin's Russia is still bad.

Just to add, in case the essayist isn't aware that the Likud and the Saudis are effectively directing some of the US PTB's 'foreign policy' and attacks on other people's countries, the former gaining billions regularly in, especially, weaponry, while the latter have been covering some of the costs of some of the worst among various US strategies involving arm/train/support-the-terrorists in the attack, bully, blockade and invade takeover 'policies' used against fossil-fuel-rich countries not yet captured under corporate economic controls.

And at least some of this ought to be common knowledge, considering the popular sites carrying some of this information, at least those pertaining to political enablers.

boingboing.net/2016/01/28/the-onions-new-owner-is-hill.html

Cory Doctorow / 7:52 am Thu Jan 28, 2016
The Onion's new owner is Hillary Clinton's most lavish financial backer

... Saban describes himself as a staunch zionist and partisan for Israel ("I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel"), which also has implications for The Onion, given its long history of scathing commentary on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and the system of Apartheid enforced by the Israeli state.

The Onion has refused to comment on whether Saban's ownership will influence its editorial policy.

But what’s gotten no attention at all is that Haim Saban, Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan and financial supporter, is Univision’s co-owner, chairman, and CEO. Saban and his wife, Cheryl, are Hillary Clinton’s top financial backers, having given $2,046,600 to support her political campaigns and at least $10 million more to the Clinton Foundation, on whose board Cheryl Saban sits. The Sabans are also generous supporters of the overall Democratic Party infrastructure, donating, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a total of $16.1 million since 1989 to Democratic and liberal candidates, party committees, leadership PACs, and federally focused 527s.

Saban badly wants Hillary Clinton to be elected president this year, vowing to provide “as much as needed” to see it happen, since “she would be great for the country and great for the world,” and “on issues I care about, [Clinton] is pristine plus.”

Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” [Jon Schwarz/The Intercept] ..

Which links to:

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/ha-ha-hillary-clintons-top-financial...

Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion”

Jon Schwarz
January 26 2016

... An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations. Another was establishing think tanks (he founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2002). And the third was controlling media outlets.

Univision also owns The Root, and Saban has made attempts to buy the Los Angeles Times and, he says, the New York Times.

Saban is not shy about throwing his weight around. In 2001, when Brazilian regulatory approval became a roadblock to the sale of Fox Family, the company he founded with Rupert Murdoch, he asked Bill Clinton to call the president of Brazil to push for a quick approval. When the deal went through, Saban personally made $1.5 billion; the next year he gave a “record-breaking” $7 million to the Democratic Party for a new national headquarters and $5 million to Clinton’s presidential library.

The New York Times reported in 2009 that Saban was apparently part of a scheme before the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress in which Saban would threaten then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that he would withhold donations if Pelosi didn’t make then-Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., chair of the House Intelligence Committee. (In return, according to the Times report, which was based on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency, Harman would lobby the Bush administration for leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists under investigation for espionage. Harman denied ever speaking to the Justice Department about the case, but did not address whether she contacted any White House officials.)

And according to a high-ranking official of the Young Democrats of America, during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary Saban offered to donate $1 million to the YDA if the organization’s two super delegates committed to Hillary Clinton.

Beyond Saban’s deep connections to the Clintons, Onion staffers likely have taken note of his statement that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” ...

That's only one billionaire donor, of course - but here's one result:

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-ha...

Hillary Clinton Goes to Militaristic, Hawkish Think Tank, Gives Militaristic, Hawkish Speech
Glenn Greenwald

September 9 2015, 12:07 p.m.

Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. By itself, the choice of the venue was revealing.

Brookings served as Ground Zero for centrist think tank advocacy of the Iraq War, which Clinton (along with potential rival Joe Biden) notoriously and vehemently advocated. Brookings’ two leading “scholar”-stars — Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon — spent all of 2002 and 2003 insisting that invading Iraq was wise and just, and spent the years after that assuring Americans that the “victorious” war and subsequent occupation were going really well (in April 2003, O’Hanlon debated with himself over whether the strategy that led to the “victory” in his beloved war should be deemed “brilliant” or just extremely “clever,” while in June 2003, Pollack assured New York Times readers that Saddam’s WMD would be found).

Since then, O’Hanlon in particular has advocated for increased military force in more countries than one can count. That’s not surprising: Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.”

So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. ...

...As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton:

I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years.

She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.”

Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation.

But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends? ...

Some links to some very interesting information on PNAC and other long-uncovered 'pre-mapping' of the global hostile corporate/military takeover in process have been recently posted here on C-9, either in essays or comments.

This web of horrors is far too intricate and spun by too many suicidally murderous PR-spinners to be covered in any comment, but documented/verified answers to questions can be answered by many on C-9 who are far better qualified to do so than am I. Hang around and learn actual facts, often recorded from the mouths of the perpetrators/detailing their specific and documented actions and results, as do those of us in the peanut gallery here.

But the above should help to explain why the anyway pre-exploded RUSSIA!!! claims are not accepted here and elsewhere.

This is not about whether other countries have the best possible leaders or so much about which corporate/billionaire puppets the American people are permitted to 'choose' between but about self-determination, democracy, human rights and the survival of life on the planet beyond this decade or perhaps the next few decades, if that planned 'limited' nuclear war-crime against multiple countries - and which TPTB and their lackeys apparently believe they can survive, since they do not believe in science/biology/reality - does not take place.

This is about hostile and outside powers controlling corrupted and venial governments and the efforts of the people to move outside the corporate/billionaire-supporting 'political parties' being forced upon them to find a way to gain/create the government of, by and for the people enabling equal rights, treatment and opportunity for all which some are even specifically promised in their Constitution.

Very few were silly enough to think that Trump was remotely suitable for any public office but he's still not yet entirely controlled and is unpredictable, increasing survival chances by perhaps only fractions over that of a Clinton Admin - but the American people are offered no real choice in their elections, any real choices concerned with the public interest being nobbled/cheated out every time, and nobody wants a bloody revolution, just a pacific political one.

And truth matters to the reality-based watching those reality-detached who believe that they can create their own and somehow 'make it real', destroying civilization and the natural life support system in the process of endless pathological power- and profit-draining at all cost to everyone/everything else, of whom/which they are evidently unaware that they also rely upon.

Truth may be almost the only defensive weapon many of us have left to us.

—

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.

Submitted by duckpin on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:03pm

Many thanks. Both the Saudi dictators and the Israelis

@Ellen North are up to their armpits in influencing American politics. The Saudi representatives for the most part here are registered as working for a foreign government. The Israelis are not due to a special for-them-only law.
So with dual citizenship, is Saban an American or an Israeli?
Many thanks for the information, most of which was new to me. Glad I've never read The Onion, now I won't for sure.

#10.1.2.1 ... Likud is worse; the Saudi dictatorship is worse; lots of countries are worse; but, Putin's Russia is still bad. Just to add, in case the essayist isn't aware that the Likud and the Saudis are effectively directing some of the US PTB's 'foreign policy' and attacks on other people's countries, the former gaining billions regularly in, especially, weaponry, while the latter have been covering some of the costs of some of the worst among various US strategies involving arm/train/support-the-terrorists in the attack, bully, blockade and invade takeover 'policies' used against fossil-fuel-rich countries not yet captured under corporate economic controls. And at least some of this ought to be common knowledge, considering the popular sites carrying some of this information, at least those pertaining to political enablers. boingboing.net/2016/01/28/the-onions-new-owner-is-hill.html Cory Doctorow / 7:52 am Thu Jan 28, 2016 The Onion's new owner is Hillary Clinton's most lavish financial backer ... Saban describes himself as a staunch zionist and partisan for Israel ("I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel"), which also has implications for The Onion, given its long history of scathing commentary on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and the system of Apartheid enforced by the Israeli state. The Onion has refused to comment on whether Saban's ownership will influence its editorial policy. But what’s gotten no attention at all is that Haim Saban, Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan and financial supporter, is Univision’s co-owner, chairman, and CEO. Saban and his wife, Cheryl, are Hillary Clinton’s top financial backers, having given $2,046,600 to support her political campaigns and at least $10 million more to the Clinton Foundation, on whose board Cheryl Saban sits. The Sabans are also generous supporters of the overall Democratic Party infrastructure, donating, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a total of $16.1 million since 1989 to Democratic and liberal candidates, party committees, leadership PACs, and federally focused 527s. Saban badly wants Hillary Clinton to be elected president this year, vowing to provide “as much as needed” to see it happen, since “she would be great for the country and great for the world,” and “on issues I care about, [Clinton] is pristine plus.” Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” [Jon Schwarz/The Intercept] .. Which links to: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/ha-ha-hillary-clintons-top-financial... Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” Jon Schwarz January 26 2016 ... An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations. Another was establishing think tanks (he founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2002). And the third was controlling media outlets. Univision also owns The Root, and Saban has made attempts to buy the Los Angeles Times and, he says, the New York Times. Saban is not shy about throwing his weight around. In 2001, when Brazilian regulatory approval became a roadblock to the sale of Fox Family, the company he founded with Rupert Murdoch, he asked Bill Clinton to call the president of Brazil to push for a quick approval. When the deal went through, Saban personally made $1.5 billion; the next year he gave a “record-breaking” $7 million to the Democratic Party for a new national headquarters and $5 million to Clinton’s presidential library. The New York Times reported in 2009 that Saban was apparently part of a scheme before the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress in which Saban would threaten then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that he would withhold donations if Pelosi didn’t make then-Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., chair of the House Intelligence Committee. (In return, according to the Times report, which was based on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency, Harman would lobby the Bush administration for leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists under investigation for espionage. Harman denied ever speaking to the Justice Department about the case, but did not address whether she contacted any White House officials.) And according to a high-ranking official of the Young Democrats of America, during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary Saban offered to donate $1 million to the YDA if the organization’s two super delegates committed to Hillary Clinton. Beyond Saban’s deep connections to the Clintons, Onion staffers likely have taken note of his statement that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” ... That's only one billionaire donor, of course - but here's one result: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-ha... Hillary Clinton Goes to Militaristic, Hawkish Think Tank, Gives Militaristic, Hawkish Speech Glenn Greenwald September 9 2015, 12:07 p.m. Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. By itself, the choice of the venue was revealing. Brookings served as Ground Zero for centrist think tank advocacy of the Iraq War, which Clinton (along with potential rival Joe Biden) notoriously and vehemently advocated. Brookings’ two leading “scholar”-stars — Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon — spent all of 2002 and 2003 insisting that invading Iraq was wise and just, and spent the years after that assuring Americans that the “victorious” war and subsequent occupation were going really well (in April 2003, O’Hanlon debated with himself over whether the strategy that led to the “victory” in his beloved war should be deemed “brilliant” or just extremely “clever,” while in June 2003, Pollack assured New York Times readers that Saddam’s WMD would be found). Since then, O’Hanlon in particular has advocated for increased military force in more countries than one can count. That’s not surprising: Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.” So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. ... ...As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton: I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years. She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.” Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation. But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends? ... Some links to some very interesting information on PNAC and other long-uncovered 'pre-mapping' of the global hostile corporate/military takeover in process have been recently posted here on C-9, either in essays or comments. This web of horrors is far too intricate and spun by too many suicidally murderous PR-spinners to be covered in any comment, but documented/verified answers to questions can be answered by many on C-9 who are far better qualified to do so than am I. Hang around and learn actual facts, often recorded from the mouths of the perpetrators/detailing their specific and documented actions and results, as do those of us in the peanut gallery here. But the above should help to explain why the anyway pre-exploded RUSSIA!!! claims are not accepted here and elsewhere. This is not about whether other countries have the best possible leaders or so much about which corporate/billionaire puppets the American people are permitted to 'choose' between but about self-determination, democracy, human rights and the survival of life on the planet beyond this decade or perhaps the next few decades, if that planned 'limited' nuclear war-crime against multiple countries - and which TPTB and their lackeys apparently believe they can survive, since they do not believe in science/biology/reality - does not take place. This is about hostile and outside powers controlling corrupted and venial governments and the efforts of the people to move outside the corporate/billionaire-supporting 'political parties' being forced upon them to find a way to gain/create the government of, by and for the people enabling equal rights, treatment and opportunity for all which some are even specifically promised in their Constitution. Very few were silly enough to think that Trump was remotely suitable for any public office but he's still not yet entirely controlled and is unpredictable, increasing survival chances by perhaps only fractions over that of a Clinton Admin - but the American people are offered no real choice in their elections, any real choices concerned with the public interest being nobbled/cheated out every time, and nobody wants a bloody revolution, just a pacific political one. And truth matters to the reality-based watching those reality-detached who believe that they can create their own and somehow 'make it real', destroying civilization and the natural life support system in the process of endless pathological power- and profit-draining at all cost to everyone/everything else, of whom/which they are evidently unaware that they also rely upon. Truth may be almost the only defensive weapon many of us have left to us.

—

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

Submitted by Deja on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:17pm

Mission accomplished, except, OOPSIE - wrong puppet elected

@Ellen North

An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations. Another was establishing think tanks (he founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2002). And the third was controlling media outlets.

#10.1.2.1 ... Likud is worse; the Saudi dictatorship is worse; lots of countries are worse; but, Putin's Russia is still bad. Just to add, in case the essayist isn't aware that the Likud and the Saudis are effectively directing some of the US PTB's 'foreign policy' and attacks on other people's countries, the former gaining billions regularly in, especially, weaponry, while the latter have been covering some of the costs of some of the worst among various US strategies involving arm/train/support-the-terrorists in the attack, bully, blockade and invade takeover 'policies' used against fossil-fuel-rich countries not yet captured under corporate economic controls. And at least some of this ought to be common knowledge, considering the popular sites carrying some of this information, at least those pertaining to political enablers. boingboing.net/2016/01/28/the-onions-new-owner-is-hill.html Cory Doctorow / 7:52 am Thu Jan 28, 2016 The Onion's new owner is Hillary Clinton's most lavish financial backer ... Saban describes himself as a staunch zionist and partisan for Israel ("I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel"), which also has implications for The Onion, given its long history of scathing commentary on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and the system of Apartheid enforced by the Israeli state. The Onion has refused to comment on whether Saban's ownership will influence its editorial policy. But what’s gotten no attention at all is that Haim Saban, Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan and financial supporter, is Univision’s co-owner, chairman, and CEO. Saban and his wife, Cheryl, are Hillary Clinton’s top financial backers, having given $2,046,600 to support her political campaigns and at least $10 million more to the Clinton Foundation, on whose board Cheryl Saban sits. The Sabans are also generous supporters of the overall Democratic Party infrastructure, donating, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a total of $16.1 million since 1989 to Democratic and liberal candidates, party committees, leadership PACs, and federally focused 527s. Saban badly wants Hillary Clinton to be elected president this year, vowing to provide “as much as needed” to see it happen, since “she would be great for the country and great for the world,” and “on issues I care about, [Clinton] is pristine plus.” Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” [Jon Schwarz/The Intercept] .. Which links to: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/ha-ha-hillary-clintons-top-financial... Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” Jon Schwarz January 26 2016 ... An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations. Another was establishing think tanks (he founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2002). And the third was controlling media outlets. Univision also owns The Root, and Saban has made attempts to buy the Los Angeles Times and, he says, the New York Times. Saban is not shy about throwing his weight around. In 2001, when Brazilian regulatory approval became a roadblock to the sale of Fox Family, the company he founded with Rupert Murdoch, he asked Bill Clinton to call the president of Brazil to push for a quick approval. When the deal went through, Saban personally made $1.5 billion; the next year he gave a “record-breaking” $7 million to the Democratic Party for a new national headquarters and $5 million to Clinton’s presidential library. The New York Times reported in 2009 that Saban was apparently part of a scheme before the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress in which Saban would threaten then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that he would withhold donations if Pelosi didn’t make then-Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., chair of the House Intelligence Committee. (In return, according to the Times report, which was based on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency, Harman would lobby the Bush administration for leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists under investigation for espionage. Harman denied ever speaking to the Justice Department about the case, but did not address whether she contacted any White House officials.) And according to a high-ranking official of the Young Democrats of America, during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary Saban offered to donate $1 million to the YDA if the organization’s two super delegates committed to Hillary Clinton. Beyond Saban’s deep connections to the Clintons, Onion staffers likely have taken note of his statement that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” ... That's only one billionaire donor, of course - but here's one result: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-ha... Hillary Clinton Goes to Militaristic, Hawkish Think Tank, Gives Militaristic, Hawkish Speech Glenn Greenwald September 9 2015, 12:07 p.m. Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. By itself, the choice of the venue was revealing. Brookings served as Ground Zero for centrist think tank advocacy of the Iraq War, which Clinton (along with potential rival Joe Biden) notoriously and vehemently advocated. Brookings’ two leading “scholar”-stars — Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon — spent all of 2002 and 2003 insisting that invading Iraq was wise and just, and spent the years after that assuring Americans that the “victorious” war and subsequent occupation were going really well (in April 2003, O’Hanlon debated with himself over whether the strategy that led to the “victory” in his beloved war should be deemed “brilliant” or just extremely “clever,” while in June 2003, Pollack assured New York Times readers that Saddam’s WMD would be found). Since then, O’Hanlon in particular has advocated for increased military force in more countries than one can count. That’s not surprising: Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.” So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. ... ...As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton: I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years. She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.” Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation. But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends? ... Some links to some very interesting information on PNAC and other long-uncovered 'pre-mapping' of the global hostile corporate/military takeover in process have been recently posted here on C-9, either in essays or comments. This web of horrors is far too intricate and spun by too many suicidally murderous PR-spinners to be covered in any comment, but documented/verified answers to questions can be answered by many on C-9 who are far better qualified to do so than am I. Hang around and learn actual facts, often recorded from the mouths of the perpetrators/detailing their specific and documented actions and results, as do those of us in the peanut gallery here. But the above should help to explain why the anyway pre-exploded RUSSIA!!! claims are not accepted here and elsewhere. This is not about whether other countries have the best possible leaders or so much about which corporate/billionaire puppets the American people are permitted to 'choose' between but about self-determination, democracy, human rights and the survival of life on the planet beyond this decade or perhaps the next few decades, if that planned 'limited' nuclear war-crime against multiple countries - and which TPTB and their lackeys apparently believe they can survive, since they do not believe in science/biology/reality - does not take place. This is about hostile and outside powers controlling corrupted and venial governments and the efforts of the people to move outside the corporate/billionaire-supporting 'political parties' being forced upon them to find a way to gain/create the government of, by and for the people enabling equal rights, treatment and opportunity for all which some are even specifically promised in their Constitution. Very few were silly enough to think that Trump was remotely suitable for any public office but he's still not yet entirely controlled and is unpredictable, increasing survival chances by perhaps only fractions over that of a Clinton Admin - but the American people are offered no real choice in their elections, any real choices concerned with the public interest being nobbled/cheated out every time, and nobody wants a bloody revolution, just a pacific political one. And truth matters to the reality-based watching those reality-detached who believe that they can create their own and somehow 'make it real', destroying civilization and the natural life support system in the process of endless pathological power- and profit-draining at all cost to everyone/everything else, of whom/which they are evidently unaware that they also rely upon. Truth may be almost the only defensive weapon many of us have left to us.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 6:26pm

@Deja

@Deja

Yup, and I still think we're marginally better off, at least for the moment while Trump is brought into line/down, having avoided the Mad Bomber, giving us that so-much-less radioactive moment to do with as we will. While there's life, there's hope.

—

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.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 8:04pm

Ellen,

@Ellen North
Brilliant. Thank you.

#10.1.2.1 ... Likud is worse; the Saudi dictatorship is worse; lots of countries are worse; but, Putin's Russia is still bad. Just to add, in case the essayist isn't aware that the Likud and the Saudis are effectively directing some of the US PTB's 'foreign policy' and attacks on other people's countries, the former gaining billions regularly in, especially, weaponry, while the latter have been covering some of the costs of some of the worst among various US strategies involving arm/train/support-the-terrorists in the attack, bully, blockade and invade takeover 'policies' used against fossil-fuel-rich countries not yet captured under corporate economic controls. And at least some of this ought to be common knowledge, considering the popular sites carrying some of this information, at least those pertaining to political enablers. boingboing.net/2016/01/28/the-onions-new-owner-is-hill.html Cory Doctorow / 7:52 am Thu Jan 28, 2016 The Onion's new owner is Hillary Clinton's most lavish financial backer ... Saban describes himself as a staunch zionist and partisan for Israel ("I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel"), which also has implications for The Onion, given its long history of scathing commentary on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory and the system of Apartheid enforced by the Israeli state. The Onion has refused to comment on whether Saban's ownership will influence its editorial policy. But what’s gotten no attention at all is that Haim Saban, Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan and financial supporter, is Univision’s co-owner, chairman, and CEO. Saban and his wife, Cheryl, are Hillary Clinton’s top financial backers, having given $2,046,600 to support her political campaigns and at least $10 million more to the Clinton Foundation, on whose board Cheryl Saban sits. The Sabans are also generous supporters of the overall Democratic Party infrastructure, donating, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a total of $16.1 million since 1989 to Democratic and liberal candidates, party committees, leadership PACs, and federally focused 527s. Saban badly wants Hillary Clinton to be elected president this year, vowing to provide “as much as needed” to see it happen, since “she would be great for the country and great for the world,” and “on issues I care about, [Clinton] is pristine plus.” Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” [Jon Schwarz/The Intercept] .. Which links to: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/26/ha-ha-hillary-clintons-top-financial... Ha Ha: Hillary Clinton’s Top Financial Supporter Now Controls “The Onion” Jon Schwarz January 26 2016 ... An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations. Another was establishing think tanks (he founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2002). And the third was controlling media outlets. Univision also owns The Root, and Saban has made attempts to buy the Los Angeles Times and, he says, the New York Times. Saban is not shy about throwing his weight around. In 2001, when Brazilian regulatory approval became a roadblock to the sale of Fox Family, the company he founded with Rupert Murdoch, he asked Bill Clinton to call the president of Brazil to push for a quick approval. When the deal went through, Saban personally made $1.5 billion; the next year he gave a “record-breaking” $7 million to the Democratic Party for a new national headquarters and $5 million to Clinton’s presidential library. The New York Times reported in 2009 that Saban was apparently part of a scheme before the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress in which Saban would threaten then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that he would withhold donations if Pelosi didn’t make then-Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., chair of the House Intelligence Committee. (In return, according to the Times report, which was based on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency, Harman would lobby the Bush administration for leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists under investigation for espionage. Harman denied ever speaking to the Justice Department about the case, but did not address whether she contacted any White House officials.) And according to a high-ranking official of the Young Democrats of America, during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary Saban offered to donate $1 million to the YDA if the organization’s two super delegates committed to Hillary Clinton. Beyond Saban’s deep connections to the Clintons, Onion staffers likely have taken note of his statement that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” ... That's only one billionaire donor, of course - but here's one result: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-ha... Hillary Clinton Goes to Militaristic, Hawkish Think Tank, Gives Militaristic, Hawkish Speech Glenn Greenwald September 9 2015, 12:07 p.m. Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton this morning delivered a foreign policy speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington. By itself, the choice of the venue was revealing. Brookings served as Ground Zero for centrist think tank advocacy of the Iraq War, which Clinton (along with potential rival Joe Biden) notoriously and vehemently advocated. Brookings’ two leading “scholar”-stars — Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon — spent all of 2002 and 2003 insisting that invading Iraq was wise and just, and spent the years after that assuring Americans that the “victorious” war and subsequent occupation were going really well (in April 2003, O’Hanlon debated with himself over whether the strategy that led to the “victory” in his beloved war should be deemed “brilliant” or just extremely “clever,” while in June 2003, Pollack assured New York Times readers that Saddam’s WMD would be found). Since then, O’Hanlon in particular has advocated for increased military force in more countries than one can count. That’s not surprising: Brookings is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchange, she’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.” So the hawkish Brookings is the prism through which Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy worldview can be best understood. The think tank is filled with former advisers to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and would certainly provide numerous top-level foreign policy officials in any Hillary Clinton administration. ... ...As for Israel itself, Clinton eagerly promised to shower it with a long, expensive, and dangerous list of gifts. Here’s just a part of what that country can expect from the second President Clinton: I will deepen America’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, including our long standing tradition of guaranteeing Israel’s qualitative military edge. I’ll increase support for Israeli rocket and missile defenses and for intelligence sharing. I’ll sell Israel the most sophisticated fire aircraft ever developed. The F-35. We’ll work together to develop and implement better tunnel detection technology to prevent arms smuggling and kidnapping as well as the strongest possible missile defense system for Northern Israel, which has been subjected to Hezbollah’s attacks for years. She promised she “will sustain a robust military presence in the [Persian Gulf] region, especially our air and naval forces.” She vowed to “increase security cooperation with our Gulf allies” — by which she means the despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others. She swore she will crack down even further on Hezbollah: “It’s time to eliminate the false distinction that some still make between the supposed political and military wings. If you’re part of Hezbollah, you’re part of a terrorist organization, plain and simple.” Then she took the ultimate pledge: “I would not support this agreement for one second if I thought it put Israel in greater danger.” So even if the deal would benefit the U.S., she would not support it “for one second” if it “put Israel in greater danger.” That’s an unusually blunt vow to subordinate the interests of the U.S. to that foreign nation. But when it comes to gifts to Israel, that’s not all! Echoing the vow of several GOP candidates to call Netanyahu right away after being elected, Clinton promised: “I would invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House during my first month in office to talk about all of these issues and to set us on a course of close, frequent consultation right from the start, because we both rely on each other for support as partners, allies and friends.” She then addressed “the people of Israel,” telling them: “Let me say, you’ll never have to question whether we’re with you. The United States will always be with you.” For good measure, she heaped praise on “my friend Chuck Schumer,” who has led the battle to defeat the Iran Deal, gushing about what an “excellent leader in the Senate” he will make. What’s a little warmongering among friends? ... Some links to some very interesting information on PNAC and other long-uncovered 'pre-mapping' of the global hostile corporate/military takeover in process have been recently posted here on C-9, either in essays or comments. This web of horrors is far too intricate and spun by too many suicidally murderous PR-spinners to be covered in any comment, but documented/verified answers to questions can be answered by many on C-9 who are far better qualified to do so than am I. Hang around and learn actual facts, often recorded from the mouths of the perpetrators/detailing their specific and documented actions and results, as do those of us in the peanut gallery here. But the above should help to explain why the anyway pre-exploded RUSSIA!!! claims are not accepted here and elsewhere. This is not about whether other countries have the best possible leaders or so much about which corporate/billionaire puppets the American people are permitted to 'choose' between but about self-determination, democracy, human rights and the survival of life on the planet beyond this decade or perhaps the next few decades, if that planned 'limited' nuclear war-crime against multiple countries - and which TPTB and their lackeys apparently believe they can survive, since they do not believe in science/biology/reality - does not take place. This is about hostile and outside powers controlling corrupted and venial governments and the efforts of the people to move outside the corporate/billionaire-supporting 'political parties' being forced upon them to find a way to gain/create the government of, by and for the people enabling equal rights, treatment and opportunity for all which some are even specifically promised in their Constitution. Very few were silly enough to think that Trump was remotely suitable for any public office but he's still not yet entirely controlled and is unpredictable, increasing survival chances by perhaps only fractions over that of a Clinton Admin - but the American people are offered no real choice in their elections, any real choices concerned with the public interest being nobbled/cheated out every time, and nobody wants a bloody revolution, just a pacific political one. And truth matters to the reality-based watching those reality-detached who believe that they can create their own and somehow 'make it real', destroying civilization and the natural life support system in the process of endless pathological power- and profit-draining at all cost to everyone/everything else, of whom/which they are evidently unaware that they also rely upon. Truth may be almost the only defensive weapon many of us have left to us.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 6:29pm

@Linda Wood

@Linda Wood

Coming from you, who really does brilliant posts... now I feel almost sorta fraudulent, lol. But thanks!

—

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.

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:01am

I can only speak for myself.

I'm registered on both Facebook and twitter. I don't use them and pay very little attention to their content. Huffington Post? Well, Arianna Huffington started the site, so I read it with a grain of salt. I never felt like I was played on c99. I worked the Sanders' campaign so had a front row seat to watch the machinations of $hrill. She and tRump are the two worse candidates to ever run for POTUS in my lifetime! I felt that way then and still do now. But played by trolls, Russian and/or otherwise? No. Rec'd!!

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:06am

First of all, like with the DNC emails, there's no proof

some of these so called fake news stories and sites were the work of Russian trolls. Even the HuffPo story admits as such:

"It might not actually matter if Vladimir Putin or a kid in Macedonia masterminded the flood of fake news."

Secondly, it didn't take fake news stories for most Bernie supporters (I was not a Bernie supporter) to oppose Clinton, she was and is a war criminal, which was enough for most. She was and is a Wall Street neoliberal which was also enough for most.

I'm not sure what the aim here is and of the Huffpo story. Both appear to want to perpetuate the Red Scare more than anything. They're not trying to defend Clinton, they're trying to reinforce the idea that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. That is imperialist propaganda.

From that respect, the Huffpo article itself sounds like fake news and of course Huffpo is a fake news site, part of the oligarchy's propaganda media monopoly.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:22am

I should say as I remember there were some

@Big Al @Big Al stories on here about pizzagate and Clinton's health issues, etc., some that I personally paid no attention to because they appeared to be generated in some way and to me they weren't necessary to justify opposition to Clinton. Her documented actions as SOS alone disqualified her for president.

But the pro-Russia business, nah, didn't see much of that. It was more anti U.S. which is always turned around by some to mean pro-something (pro-Assad, pro-Gaddafi, pro-Chavez, etc.) But even if there was, so what, is Russia our enemy? Is that your point?

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:30am

Yes, there were a few, easily ignored, more quickly forgotten

@Big Al 1 However as I wrote the blame Russia for everything is even getting to anti-Putin campaigners/activists and ex diplomats. Much of it entirely misses the effects of Putin on Russia itself, not that that actually matters to the pants on fire brigade.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 1:17pm

During the general and for a while afterwards

@Big Al This site had a very definite and knee-jerk anti-Hillary bias. It was enough to cause me to reconsider how I view this site. It also generated my signature.

But back to this piece... it amounts to an appeal to authority... in this case HuffPo's and some random dude they interviewed. In an era of institutionalized propaganda I'm going to need more than an appeal to authority before I can reasonably consider an argument.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:47pm

Distrusting the junkie nest door isn't "knee jerk bias"

@SnappleBC

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by dkmich on Mon, 03/13/2017 - 2:15am

There was and is nothing knee jerk about it,

@SnappleBC

What makes you think it is gone? This is a non-partisan site and that definitely includes Clintons, Obamas, and even Bernie.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 2:43pm

The pizzagate and Clinton's health issues were important.

@Big Al
Not because they were true but because there was a small percentage of the public that believed them. Just another straw....

The pizza crap emails shouldn't have been on Podesta's campaign chairman Gmail account in the first place. Most knowledgeable professionals have many email accounts; personal, business and disposable. But they did reveal the extent to which Podesta's personal lifestyle is intimately tied up with his role as "King Maker" in Washington for the last three decades.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:40pm

well, we had a poster here who talked endlessly about

@CB
Hillary Clinton's health issues and very few members here had pushed back against it. I sometimes felt I was the only one. If - in addition to be a pain in the neck to read them - they were totally false, then I just wonder how come so many here went along with the author's narrative and enjoyed to support the author's views.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:01pm

I would have joined you. The only truth to the health issue is

@mimi
that Her's health is not atypical with someone of her vintage. At 70, she is no longer the spring chicken she once was. We cannot deny that she has had some health issues during the campaign and during her stint as SoS that required her to break her rhythm. Pretending they did not exist at all just added fuel to the match.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:20pm

pardon me, you appeared on the scene rather late here

@CB
you don't have a profile, I can't find your membership number, who are you? I don't trust mystery ghostly members. But thanks nevertheless, I like your comments often, but I dislike your anonymity and think you could easily fool anybody here. Not that you are a troll, of course not, but you could be. And if I am in a good mood, I even like trolls. So, NO OFFENSE.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:37pm

People here are astute.

@mimi

We can interact with new participants without the stripping of anonymity.

Or, is this snark?

As you know, this is a blog populated by critical thinkers. Look around if you are not sure. You can trust your friends if your own instincts aren't kicking in.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:41pm

I agree and will take the comment back

@Pluto's Republic
and apologize.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:15pm

No problem.

@mimi

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:54pm

hi, CB, I apologize for being rude to you,

@CB
I don't like anonymity that much. Why would I like anonymity? It's the death sentence for the online communication on the long run, imo. But that's just me.

I really didn't mean to upset or ask you the "paper please" routine as Pluto had mentioned. I got my lecture and was sent into the corner.

Be happy with being anonymous. Pluto as well. You are all my friends, anonymous friends, online anonymous friends. Sigh. What a pity. I rather had real ones.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:14pm

I'm not really anonymous. I have a very lengthy background

@mimi
at DKos that some here may already have surmised.

Time to come out of the closet.

I used to be a shit disturber at DKos.

I got tossed for being a professional Russian troll (my master of English idioms apparently was too good for me to be a common street troll) who actually worked from the basement of the Kremlin. Apparently I was planted many years ago just for this moment when Putin put his man in the White House.

I don't normally carry a pseudonym from one blog to another, but it's OK in this case due to the relationship.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 6:02pm

Hi, CB, I seriously apologize again, because

@CB
I found your membership number and I really don't know what hit me to comment that weirdly. I hope you accept the apology.

I remember your name. Amazing how long ago you got "tossed to the bones and skulls". May be time to read a couple of your old diaries to put you back into my active memory. Thank you much for being a good sport. And thank you for your very substantial, information filled comments here. They certainly are an asset.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by CB on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 6:22pm

I joined DKos in 2008 because I wanted change from Dubya's

@mimi
policies and McCain/Palin stopped so they would not be able to continue them. By the time of Obamacare and the intervention in Afghanistan and Libya I knew we had been played for suckers.

It was just a month or so ago when I earned my prestigious Skull and Bones award. Over the years, I saw many, many good people get tossed off the bus for speaking truth to power.

I've written a number of diaries for DKos but never ended up publishing them - mainly because I didn't have the time to attend to them afterwards.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 7:53pm

oops, I see I mixed up your joining date at DK

@CB
with your "tossing" date. No diaries published, but 13730 comments, last comment in 2017. Ok, I guess that's hard to get back to. Lotlizard followed you over there, so that tells me something (good)

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by mj55 on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:45pm

@mimi I pushed back

@mimi I pushed back against the Hillary Clinton story, both on here in comments, and in a diaryon Kos. I was also pretty outfront on here with my critiques of HRC as well as the DNC.

I also posted my own version of an HRC conspiracy theory, asking questions about the Rich murder. I don't think that one will ever be solved, but I still don't believe in coincidence.

So much for the implied accusation that I'm a one-shot troll.

The other cheap shots from commenters - that I must be silly or ignorant because I read facebook or huffington post, unlike the extremely erudite and not-at-all-in-an-isolated-news-bubble posters on here - whatever, you can enjoy feeling superior on that one.

My personal opinion is that Russian hackers took advantage of an existing corrupt system at the DNC, took advantage of the widespread, and true, belief that HRC had weighted the scales against a Sanders nomination. Then they proceeded to flood all the social media with propaganda, as the cited Huffpo article states. And we all fell for it, and clicked on it, and spread it. That's fricking what happened.

I'm just saddened to think of you all busy writing back and forth to each other, buried in self-congratulations, not involved at all in the resistance because who can stand to possibly less than 100% pure and no movement is 100% pure. I haven't been on here much lately, but when I have, I haven't seen any "grassroots organizing" posts - nothing about all of the marches or the ongoing resistance to fascism. I think my decision to leave here was correct, and no, I won't let the door hit me on the way out. Thanks.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:05pm

Hi, mj55, nice to hear back from you,

@mj55
I have to be honest, most of what you are unhappy about on this site, doesn't interest me much. I don't care for the issues you get upset about. I like to learn from factual news reporting posts and I often find them here. The rest is noise I can live with.

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:49pm

I keep coming back to two points

@mj55 about the so called "Russian hack" of the DNC emails. First, Julain Assange of Wikileaks has stated on multiple occasions that the DNC leaks did not come from a state source. Former British ambassador, Craig Murray claimed he received the documents from an insider and delivered them to Wikileaks. Julian Assange who has never commented on his sources neither confirmed nor denied Murray's claim, but has said that Murray was not authorized to speak about the documents.

Second,no one has disputed that the content of the documents. The more important aspect of the DNC documents is the content, not the source from which Wikileaks received them. The real enemy is not the scary Russians, but those within our own system who will go to any lenghths to install the preferred candidate of the oligarchy.

By continuing to claim that the Russians hacked the DNC and somehow manipulated the election with such information, the Democratic partisans are diverting attention away from the real story which is the content of those documents. Every voter even Republicans should be outraged that one of our two major parties went to extensive lengths to manipulate the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:58pm

One day we'll all look back on this and laugh.

@mj55 @mj55

My personal opinion is that Russian hackers took advantage of an existing corrupt system at the DNC,

There was no "hack." Podesta's password was used by many people to stroll in and out of the DNC and look at stuff. This went on for months and months.

took advantage of the widespread, and true, belief that HRC had weighted the scales against a Sanders nomination.

How do you take advantage of facts?

Then they proceeded to flood all the social media with propaganda

What propaganda? Do you have an example of "propaganda?"

Most Americans never saw a single document from the DNC. Most didn't care. But then, that was NOT propaganda, anyway. It was reality unfolding.

And we all fell for it, and clicked on it, and spread it.

I never saw anything to "fall for" to "click on" or to "spread." Perhaps you can provide an example, in your own words.

So. You think you had an encounter with the Russians?

You should not be telling intelligent people that. You should keep it to yourself.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 6:01pm

"That's fricking what happened."

@mj55

No, that's you imagining you know what happened because the establishment said so. Funny, you think Rich's death was no coincidence--and Assange did say that the information had been leaked (not hacked), yet you are sure the Russians hacked the DNC. Seems like a disconnect of some kind.

But, let's say the Russians did hack the DNC and released the emails without tampering with them. So what? http://caucus99percent.com/comment/248765#comment-248765 There was not enough information, lawsuits, prosecutions, etc. out there about Trump for voters to make an informed choice?

Purists? That played out falsehood again?

So, what all are you doing for the "resistance," whatever that means to you, besides posting untrue thread starters here about fake Russian trolls to tell Caucusers how gullible they are? (Delicious irony, no?)

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 7:24pm

@mj55

@mj55 @mj55

Actually kinda wondering why you're certain that specifically hackers are required to spread propaganda, and why what you've referred to as admittedly true becomes 'propaganda' when 'spread around'?

My personal feeling is that truth ought to be known and that people have a right to know how their elections are being run, particularly where any funny business is concerned, as well as any concerning facts about their candidates prior to voting and being stuck with someone they would not have chosen had they known about corruption issues which then logically extended to their abusive treatment both as voters fooled into voting for/being stuck with a bad candidate and as citizens being imposed upon by cheating, corrupt government.

... My personal opinion is that Russian hackers took advantage of an existing corrupt system at the DNC, took advantage of the widespread, and true, belief that HRC had weighted the scales against a Sanders nomination. Then they proceeded to flood all the social media with propaganda, as the cited Huffpo article states. And we all fell for it, and clicked on it, and spread it. That's fricking what happened. ...

My objections in this area lean more toward the fact that the American people were not permitted any choice other than that between two corrupt candidates from two corrupt corporate/billionaire-representing parties, although I obviously have far more in this area, specifically including all of the paid Clinton trolls on social media pretending to be regular posters, which your post has just brought back to mind.

I wouldn't be thinking of/bringing up such things simply out of the blue, this long after the election, without such a trigger.

Edited to add that I should have guessed I'd be ninja'd a thousand times over to wind up way down here, lol.

—

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.

Submitted by LaFeminista on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:21pm

I chose to ignore, I cant be bothered with "the silly"

@mimi parts of the campaigns.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 03/14/2017 - 6:34pm

@mimi

@mimi

Lol, it was amusing because of the Clinton factions 'concerns' about Bernie's age and state of health. And you have to admit that she has demonstrated pathological tendencies which should bar anyone from holding public office, regardless of cause, potentially worsened by any other neurological issues from which she might suffer.

—

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.

Submitted by Oldest Son Of A... on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:02pm

Pizzagate was me...

@Big Al Sometimes even monkeys like to throw poo... LOL
The Catharsis thing you know...

I did offer the "Strap Your Tin Foil Hats On Tight For This One" disclaimer though...

—

"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:18pm

Making unadulterated reality known is not interfering in an

@Big Al

election. A POTUS (Obama)and elected and appointed federal officials making claims like that is interfering with our entire system, starting with freedom of speech and press. So does the support that establishment media has given them in that.

Submitted by MrWebster on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 8:27pm

The Huffpost article is more Bernie supporter bashing.

@Big Al I think content of the article was trying to show that Bernie supporters acted like Putin dupes during the campaign season. The comments on the article in TOP have a some very nasty stuff about Bernie and supporters. I thought after the election, that Sanders would be marginalized to keep him from having any influence or start another movement. In this case, they are using the Russia smear which establishment democrats think is a winning tactic.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 1:33am

@Big Al She's fucking terrible.

@Big Al @Big Al She's fucking terrible. That's why we didn't support her.

I'm sorry that the establishment attempt to strongarm us into supporting her by creating the horrendous phenomenon known as Donald Trump backfired. That's sad for them. Now they have to create justifications for impeachment so they can rely on their plan B, Mike Pence. Too bad, so sad.

I'm not participating on either side of this pathetic little color revolution, thanks.

None of my ire should be taken as directed at Big Al, who is, if possible, even more against all this shit than I am. I'm just sick to death of this murderous nonsense and the lies that support it.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by dance you monster on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 11:53am

So, two hours into the essay's life here, . . .

. . . and the essayist has failed to interact at all with his readers in the comments. Who's trolling/playing us, again?

Feels like the dKindergarten all over again.

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 12:07pm

Market testing, 1 2 3. Tap tap, is this thing on?

@dance you monster , the koslike Ds will be dropping test nuggets continuously, I think. Building yet another speaking matrix to find out where someone hid their unity thing. Russia! Korea! Etcetera!

Poor trolls, I don't feel sorry at all. In fact I think they are funny. lol

Peace

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 2:37pm

I agree... and not just dems

@eyo If this site becomes influential then you can expect well funded and organized infiltration efforts from many different quarters. The only recourse that I can see for any community that wants to remain reality-based is to really police the critical thinking aspect along with the "adult discussion and debate" aspect. Otherwise it'll be trivially easy to insert fake news that appeals to the community sensibilities then drown out dissent with insults (sound familiar?).

DKOS died because it's partisan nature was inherently NOT reality based... no partisan viewpoint can be. In addition, they allowed themselves to act like schoolyard children. They were completely vulnerable.

—

Submitted by orestes on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:14pm

So true

@SnappleBC I find I can't trust most of what is written at TOP. It's such a reversal from the early days where only the intrepid would comment because one was expected to support every claim you made. Now, it's a bunch of intellectually-challenged sad sacks spreading propaganda to fill their lonely lives.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:53pm

@orestes

@orestes

I used to go there for information and sanity.

What a sickening waste of a once-useful, informative and often entertaining community... although I'm thankful beyond mere words that some of the best of it wound up in places like here and, honestly like the free-flowing-but-well-moderated atmosphere here much better.

—

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.

Submitted by orestes on Mon, 03/20/2017 - 11:10am

Agree on all counts

@Ellen North It is a pleasure around here. At TOP, I now find, on the rare occasions I pop in, that I can't trust anything I read (especially the titles/headlines). The perspective remains so warped, it makes me wonder- what do people get out of this kind of mendacious propaganda? Who are these people?

Submitted by eyo on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:32pm

Shout out - Thanks a million c99 moderators

@SnappleBC thanks, and I really appreciate the mods not acting like thugs while they...

police the critical thinking aspect along with the "adult discussion and debate" aspect

I stopped visiting over the other place when the owner told me to fuck off that March day, I mean how else was I supposed to take it? It was like I was 15 again, some loud mouth jerk telling me to fuck off and die! Literally.
It Ain't Easy

Peace & Love

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 4:59pm

I don't believe moderation can really solve anything

@eyo I've really and deeply come to believe that much of what we all dislike in the world is more symptom than disease. America is culturally sick. It values wealth and winning more than honor and integrity. No amount of moderation can change that. Didn't I just read yet another Uber article the other day where, apparently, now that they've decided to stop actively subverting law enforcement all is forgiven? Who cares about how they win. We just love 'em because they're all rich & famous-ey. If people in this (or any other) community don't want the symptoms then they must all strive against the disease.

Even in it's best incarnation "moderation" could never solve a problem that is deeply rooted within the community's social framework. I appreciate the fact that this place's "social framework", flawed as it is sometimes, is still world's better than GOS.

For my own money, when people post something ridiculous I think community ridicule (think #distractinglysexy) is by far the most effective measure. When they merely post something factually incorrect then an adult rebuttal is what I'd personally prefer to see. That is the change I am most actively working to make in terms of "real world politics". Right now I see political solutions as a lost cause.

—

Submitted by dkmich on Mon, 03/13/2017 - 2:21am

We don't "police" thought.

@SnappleBC that is what your brain is for.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by SnappleBC on Mon, 03/13/2017 - 3:21am

Succinctly put

@dkmich ...and if collectively the community is not able or willing to exercise sufficient brains to avoid the fate of GOS then no amount of moderation will change that. Conversely, such moderation runs the risk of turning an open political discussion into an enforced group-think. I see no real benefit to moderation in any except the most overt cases while the risks are obvious and significant.

GOS burns bright in my mind in terms of things I wish to avoid in a community. They provide an excellent road map of "things to avoid doing".

—

Submitted by dkmich on Mon, 03/13/2017 - 8:17am

one rule - don't be a dick.

@SnappleBC

It is the only thing kos ever said in his life that made any sense.

I do remember this poster clucking about every time someone here went too far and crossed his/her what is acceptable to say line. When we couldn't be admonished or shamed into compliance with his/her standards, s/he packed up, left (perhaps still silently lurked), and stayed gone until they came back with this neener, neener. WTF is that?

At c99, we are not limited in topic or philosophy. I can't call you a POS, but I can call what you say a POS. We had real Trump voters drop in here. I mean real supporters, not Hillary spiters and anti-Hillary strategists. Trump people were tolerated atc99 just like Sabir was tolerated with his I'm with her pom poms.

Freedom of expression, high IQs, and the free t-shirts Johnny gives us why we are here.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Wed, 03/15/2017 - 1:37am

@SnappleBC We have a

@SnappleBC We have a fundamental disagreement; you think nasty human nature is welling up in specific examples of badness, including trollery; I think that coordinated attacks are made on venues that allow or encourage dissent. When such venues get big enough they are either appropriated or destroyed, from within (by trolling, bullying, etc.) if possible, from without if necessary (usually via character assassinations of some kind).

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 3:46pm

I think he/she didn't do this for the first time here

@dance you monster
I remember something vaguely. Last time the author commented was in Sept. 2016. I guess he/she does it to have some material for his/her "research paper".

—

https://www.euronews.com/live

Submitted by Oldest Son Of A... on Sun, 03/12/2017 - 5:03pm

Drop The Mic...

@dance you monster And Run...

—

"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Russian Trolls Fooled Sanders Voters, Including on Here

Comments

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Pages