New Info in Seth Rich Case Updated
Note: I am updating this to add an incredible article published by Caitlyn Johnstone just two hours ago. I will link it here and below where I have excerpted two paragraphs from it . I urge everyone to read her article.
I have been waiting to see if anyone else had seen this and done an essay on it because the Twitterverse is exploding with a huge new revelation in the Seth Rich case.
Kim Dotcom has come out with this shocker.
If Congress includes #SethRich case into their Russia probe I'll give written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was @Wikileaks source.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 19, 2017
It was promptly followed by this tweet.
How do you think I knew?https://t.co/toLOtlXrxjhttps://t.co/KEWXP2oF1D
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 19, 2017
Sean Hannity, of all people, jumped on that tweet.
I'm the evidence!! https://t.co/w9WHrC4yW8
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
It was this tweet earlier today that seemed to make the Twitterverse explode.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Immediately followed by this tweet.
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs to be done properly.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
For those who may be confused about all this, HA Goodman does a very good analysis of it in this video that he made this afternoon.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PENauWbAac]
If this all is true, then this is the bombshell that kills the Russia narrative that the Democratic party and the MSM have been pushing.
Update: Sunday May 21, 2017, 12:50 pm
Caitlyn Johnstone must be thinking in the same terms I was when I wrote this essay. She analyzes Kim Dotcom's tweets and writing dating back to 2014. While like the rest of us, she does not know what he may have for us on Tuesday, she lays out a potential scenario in which the evidence he has is irrefutable and cannot be ignored.
If however you are open to the possibility that your government is lying to you with the help of the mass media, it’s not hard to imagine how a man with a tech background who is frustrated with the manipulations of the Democratic establishment might seek out the help of a powerful, well-connected internet sage in figuring out how best to use the documents he had access to for shedding the light of truth on a profoundly corrupt organization.
She goes through much of what we have learned about Seth Rich and about Kim Dorcom's own fights against establishment authority leading to his own personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democratic establishment. This leads to the nearly climatic paragraph in which Johnstone poses these questions.
What will happen if this all comes crashing down? If Kim Dotcom can show the world that Seth Rich was the one who leaked those documents? What will happen if the carpet is ripped out from underneath this massive house of cards that the American deep state has been blasting the public in the face with using its Washington pawns and the mass media?
Please read the rest of her article.
Comments
@HenryAWallace If he's for real, he
If he's for real, he just told the CIA, among others: Come and get me.
So either he's not for real, or he has already made his plans, or he's the biggest idiot who ever walked the earth.
"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
I don't know. Humans are complex and this guy's sitch is
highly complex, too. I don't always succeed, but I try not to base anything on either
my mind-reading skills or my crystal ball-gazing skills, which are dicey.
It's possible Kim Dotcom does not have something...
...and I hope he does. There is another possibility. For anyone that knows of Dotcom and his ongoing legal battle with the heroic world wide enforcer (/s) of copyright law, the US Government (at the behest of their owners), he may be angling such that the US Government may decide they really don't want him on US soil.
New Zealand appeals court upholds Kim Dotcom extradition ruling
Case is far from over: Dotcom's lawyers vow to press on to Court of Appeal.
Cyrus Farivar - 2/19/2017, 11:38 PM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/new-zealand-appeals-court-up...
Page through some of these search results from ArsTechnica:
https://arstechnica.com/search/?ie=UTF-8&q=kim+dotcom
So I sure ain't saying Dotcom's claims are not true, and like I said above, I hope they are true. But the US Government has been fucking with Dotcom for a very long time, and Dotcom has been fucking with them right back.
Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.
Actually, this was the number one reason
I hesitated about posting this.
But like Assange, Kim Dotcom does have a reputation among those in the on line world so I doubt that he would risk it for this.
What I do believe is that somehow, Seth Rich contacted him about downloading the massive amount of documents he had from the DNC and Kim Dotcom helped him in that endeavor. I am not a tech person, so I may be very wrong in my supposition, but that is my take as a non techie.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
It's not a bad guess,
but that's all it is -- a guess. I wouldn't elevate it to the status of a belief.
native
Quite so. I wouldn't expect Kim Dotcom
to be an impartial and reliable source of information regarding this affair.
native
@native He's either outright
He's either outright fabricating stuff, in which case he's probably made a deal with the US government to leave him alone in exchange for handling the Seth Rich case for them, or he's for real, in which case I hope it'll be a hell of a fight (since the alternative is him being squashed, either via character assassination or actual assassination).
"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
Publicizing what he is doing in advance will give him
some protection. If he is killed at this time there would be an uproar.
Of course the deep state call always poison him with Po-210, stamp "Putin" on his forehead and leave him to die an agonizing death in some hospital bed. Oops, that one's already been done. But, I'm sure there are many, many other methods to choose from.
@GreatLakeSailor This might actually
This might actually support the notion that he *is* for real in this.
If he's already involved in combat with the US government, he might well feel he has little to lose.
"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
Yeah...I dunno.
The Deep State wants to chew up Dotcom because MegaUpload.
The Deep State wants the Rich affair to go away.
Dotcom's play(?) forces the Deep State to choose just one.
This is almost a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin thingy unless or until there's some hard evidence.
Edit: angels not angles!
Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.
Mr. Dotcom knows one thing.
He/she is the target in the scope now.
Nobody in their right mind does that for no good reason.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Who is Kim Dotcom?
Here is the Wikipedia bio of him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom
He could be the one who brings this all down or not. He could be a charlaton. I do not know. But he is not a small time player on line.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Maybe. But Kim Dotcom does not
impress me as being a particularly trustworthy source. I'd rather he show his cards before tweeting about what a great hand he has.
native
ROFL, me too
I pretty much agree with you all points. We'll see. I do, however, also agree that this sort of stunt seems exactly in character for him. If it's for real I have no problem believing he chose to do it in a melodramatic way. Of course, it also occurs to me that going public first might be a weak form of life insurance.
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
@SnappleBC Actually, that's a
Actually, that's a point. If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, might be better to do it in full view of the world.
Still, Snowden going public didn't stop them chasing him around Asia (and Europe, even though he wasn't there). If Putin hadn't thought it was all a wonderful joke, Snowden probably wouldn't be alive.
"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
Twitter and the Alt+Tech World Are All About Reputation, Right?
Wikileaks gets this kind of treatment as well.
Just because someone is outside the system or at war with the system doesn't mean they're completely fucked up. That's a common canard created to damage their credibility.
It is amazing how much that latent propaganda -- that power of culture -- influences our thought process and frames the debate.
If this dude doesn't deliver he risks losing relevance, becoming an online drama queen, and poser. Those are at least as valid as the corporate media creds
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Agree, which brings the
question, if this guy ain't got the cards why intentionally expose himself like this? "I have this great online cred, and I'm telling y'all I've got the goods on this Seth Rich story... " followed a week later with, "ooops! my bad. I thought I had the goods, turns out I was just blowing smoke... "
What sense does that make?
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
@Wink The only way
The only way it makes sense: he was offered a deal. The U.S. gov will leave Megaupload alone if he goes out and discredits the Seth Rich story for them.
"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
What do we know of Dotcom's reasons
for doing what he does? Very little, as far as I can tell.
native
@native Not a damn thing. I
Not a damn thing. I haven't speculated. I prefer to wait until Tuesday and see what he produces, and his reasons for doing so.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Thanks for the update gulfgal
As the saying goes "curiouser and curiouser" is the case involving Seth Rich.
There is certainly more circumstantial evidence that he was the DNC leaker than the Russian government.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
@Steven D I've seen no evidence
I've seen no evidence that I can trust that supports the notion that the Russian government hacked the DNC or did a phishing attempt on John Podesta, which appears to be what we mean by "interfering with the election" now.
"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
Going to be hard to dislodge the propaganda.
Regardless of what Assange says about his source for the DNC/Podesta files, the mass medie and elite media narrative are fully fixed on the Russians as being the source. And as Caitlyn wrote, there has been immediate counter propaganda.
Seems to me that the emails,
and who hacked them, what they said are of minor importance to what actually going on with Trump and his connection to Russian PTB. Thats more about money and power. I mean really what did the emails say... The usual cut throat BAU campaign of ordinary machinations and bullshit. Seth Rich's murder is more problematic. Maybe he was the source and not the Russians, who eventually took advantage of them. SO what! It's the past... it doesn't exist anymore. We are in a time of ACTION. Seth Rich acted, somebody killed him, Clinton acted, Trump acted. Now is our time to act. Armor up.
Pretty much the DNC argument
That's pretty much the argument made by the DNC's lawyers in the DNC fraud lawsuit (Wilding v. DNC). "We didn't do anything, but if we did, that's just how politics works, no big deal."
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Well great!
Show me the email that matters more than two spits and some used toothpaste at this point.
Kim Dot com. What a grifter! Finally gets around to writing some original material.
@Song of the lark If you want to ask "so
If you want to ask "so what?" I'd suggest you ask those who have invested massive amounts of money and airtime into making sure a lot of people believe that "Russia hacked the election." Apparently they consider this a very important idea to advance.
"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
@Song of the lark It's largely Hillary
It's largely Hillary supporters who believe that the "DNC hack" and the phishing attempt on John Podesta resulted in her losing the election, or rather being cheated out of her win by nefarious means.
I would bet few people here believe that those emails and documents caused her to lose. What they did do is reveal to anybody who's interested that there is documentary proof of the corruption of Hillary, Hillary2016, the Democratic Party, and the media. These last two are the most important, as proof that both the Party and the press are basically tools of the Clinton machine--which I believe is actually the Clinton/Bush machine--breaks certain illusions about our country and makes them permanently unfeasible. This is why a large portion of the population has abandoned reason, I think; they can't bear to lose the illusions.
But if you're saying that the "hack of the election" isn't important, I'd say it's certainly not important enough to go to war over. Nor is it important enough to re-do the election in some hamhanded way like trying to start an impeachment chain (which won't work anyway). But then few people here actually believe that the "election hack" is important in that way.
You'd do better to address that criticism to those who are making it the most important thing in the world.
As for Seth Rich, if he was murdered for political reasons, especially stateside, I consider that important and so should everyone else.
"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
I believe the emails
you're looking for will be presented as evidence in the lawsuit against the DNC if it goes to trial. If it doesn't go to trial, you can read them at Wikileaks.
Here's the so what...
Should the DNC - with help from the MSM - succeed in selling us the story that "the Russians did it," then the DNC goes back to business as usual, we won the argument, fuck ya's all, we're going to get back to doing what we do best - fucking y'all. Or...
should they lose this argument - thanks to Seth Rich discovered to be the leaker (and NOT the Russians) - the DNC loses a TON of cred, their influence on future elections questionable.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I'll wait until Tuesday
But I won't hold my breath. I fully expect that this will be nothing, but hope that I'll be pleasantly surprised.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
^^^ My sentiments, exactly.^^^
Hope in this era has been reduced to a very thin gruel. In many ways it was far more satisfying when I could believe what I read in the papers, heard on the news, saw on TV, learned in school, and had faith in a benevolent creator watching over us.
Oh well, live and learn.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders is now repeating many of the lies.
The Deep State has digested both Trump and Sanders. Fight the Deep State.
Many people still have faith in Bernie Sanders and will argue that he must have a good reason, a long-term strategy perhaps, for doing this. Still, it cannot be denied that he is repeating things that he must know to be lies.
@lotlizard - I haved asked myself often
(added something at the bottom of the post)
what drives a person to lie? Are there cultures and governmental systems, in which you lie or have to lie more often than in others? Would you ask yourself, if there is a category of "pathological liars" and if you think there is, do you consider it a mental health issue that can be "treated" or is it a more an unconscious reaction of the supposed liar? Is it possible that the supposed liar, who spread these lies, is doing so to protect someone from a supposed hard to accept truth? Is that good or is that bad?
I looked at this video by Sanders mentioned in the article The Deep State Has Digested Both Trump And Sanders. Fight The Deep State by Caitline Johnstone. I agree with a lot of what she said in that article, yet I don't believe her not having an intent with what she is saying here that I would be careful to support face value:
Reading this I would just ask, considering I agree with her on the statement that Sanders is lying, is he lying because he participates in manufacturing the consent towards world-ending consequences as nuclear escalation with superpowers would represent, or is he may be lying to do the opposite?
I am not sure how to answer my own question. May be there are many (rhetorical and factual) lies in Sanders statements, yet I don't see that it is clear that those lies manufacture consent towards a nuclear power escalation into a nuclear war.
When would you lie? When you believe you could prevent an apocalyptic development from happening and protect people from it, or when you want an escalation to happen?
Let's say I can see reasons why Sanders would lie that are for a beneficial or benign reason as well. I guess I am the dummy little people woman now. So be it, I am part of the 99 percent too, just saying.
PS. I will say that I agree with Lookout who said in a comment here:
Wouldn't you think an old Independent guy like Sanders, wouldn't know that and hadn't learned from
everything that happened as of 2000?
Wow.
I won't watch the video, but just reading about what he's said, I feel the way I did when I realized he agreed with Obama's foreign policy during the campaign. Yikes. At the time I just felt he was weak on foreign policy, shockingly unknowledgeable. I voted for him hoping his domestic policy would put war out of business because, if Wall Street is his enemy, war is his enemy. But not demanding evidence of Russia hacking the DNC emails before joining in the belief that they did is scary.
I have long felt that the American people are not arguing over whether or not the United States government is corrupt. They're arguing over the question: How corrupt are they? A lot of Americans have difficulty believing things can be as bad as they are, and Bernie Sanders may just be one of those people.
@Linda Wood - what I think about Sanders
attitudes, and my personal conclusions about them are clearly just my own, is that he had from the very beginning said very, very little about his foreign policy opinions. What he also hadn't done is ever talking about or using the fact that he is Jewish in any of his public comments. At least I can't remember any.
I concluded that he knows that the whole issue of his own view points on what kind of relations he should have vis-à-vis Israel or Germany or Russia is more or less "too difficult to handle publicly" for him and he remained silent for that reason. I don't blame him for it. It is a very tough nut to crack.
I think he didn't expect to come into the situation in which he actually could have been nominated as a Presidential candidate and when he realized that it was a realistic possibility, he was not clear about which way he would turn with regards to his foreign policies.
I don't like what he said in that video, I think he has made a conscious decision to "lie", but not with bad intentions, but rather out of the conviction that whatever he could or would say and try to do with regards to his foreign policies, he wouldn't be able to pursue as a future president. I think he sensed that he, like many other presidents before him, are "under the thumb of the national security folks inside the CIA, NSA etc and that the "wrong political words" could lead (prematurely) to chaos. I think he made his public statements now quite consciously. Why exactly he felt that necessary is not clear to me, but it's not a reason for me to attack him for it - yet.
I respect people, who can separate their private and official activities, and restrain themselves to show only their public side. I felt bad, when the Black Live Matters movement was used to accuse him of being "racially insensitive" or something like that. I am also appalled that people try to punch cheap shots against Jane Sanders. And I respect that Sanders never played the "Jewish card" so to speak. I really apologize how I phrase this, I am sure a native English speaker would do a better job to express what I am trying to say.
I saw it like he made a decision in life that "being Jewish" or being "black" or being a "female" isn't an issue he would use as a tool in political discourse. And I think that's a respectable position to have. As a consequence I am not willing to "throw Sanders under the bus", nor would I think he is the next "leader" to spearhead a revolution against the world-wide oligarchy, within the US and internationally. Anyone knows that being "black", being "female" or being "Jewish" has a clear role to play in which social and historical conditions and contexts you are in, but I think it should never be used as a tool in political debates or campaigns. Because you are not responsible of "who you are according to your genes and what you are born into".
May be I can explain it this way. I used to think in my youth and later on in the US that my political place would be within the Social Democrats (in Germany) and later on by (not knowing much about anything within the US historical context) the US Democrats. Since 2008 this "default" position has been shaken (pretty much through Obama's lack of fighting for what he claimed to fight for in his campaign). Today I would support Angela Merkel for example, but never vote for her party. (Did you hear or saw much of her husband in public? Almost never and I respect that. Did you see that she insisted to continue to help the refugees, despite the fact that her support for them and their massive influx has caused her great troubles and politically disadvantages from her own party? And don't forget that the US has created that situation and frigging Trump tried to bash her for that). She definitely didn't cave in immediately and tried to stand up for her view points. So, I find myself supporting our Christian Democratic (which would be the equivalent to a US Republican President) Chancellor (still - will see what happens in the future), but would never vote for her party she belongs to. That's a bit strange, no?
I think similarly about Sanders, I still respect Sanders, but would not vote anymore for the current melange of Democrats.
Let's say I am thoroughly confused. But I won't throw an old man like Sanders under the bus, and I don't bash his wife. That's just as simple as that.
Social Democrats lost me for good in the early 1980s
The issues in those days were nuclear power, ecology, the Cold War arms race, and in Frankfurt, Hesse’s SPD governor Holger Börner trying to push through “Startbahn West” (an airport expansion opposed by an extended campaign of civil disobedience).
Social Democratic parties in Europe just keep on demonstrating that their values and mine don’t match up anymore. Case in point:
Berlin Social Democratic Party declares BDS anti-Semitic
@ lotlizard - so much to say .... in 1980 I was in Italy and
not aware what was going on in Germany. Basically completely uninformed or not involved in any political trending movements, I didn't even have access to German newspapers or TV.
As a student in Berlin, in the late sixties til the mid seventies, I became aware of the SDS = Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund = Socialist German Student Union. During that time I came in contact with them when I joined in the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations through other students at my University. Otherwise I was too much busy with my private life and studies and got put off with all the developments of the RAF etc. that I never got into any activities with the SDS in Berlin at all.(The link shows activities of the SDS today).
Back then I signed once something I hadn't even read carefully, just to support a fellow student friend, a very shy student, who was active in the SDS. I had a bit of pity with him, pimples, shy, very serious student, but hopelessly unrealistic. I was engaged and already a mom at that point in time and was in the last phase of my masters thesis writing.
I had no idea that this signature would get me a "file" with the German Verfassungsschutz . I learned that when they got me into an interview in 1975, when I applied for my first job in the "Oeffentlichen Dienst". Thank God I was that suprised and amazed and couldn't even remember that I had signed something "that marked me as a potential extreme radical left" or some such, that they realized I was just a "little naive girl" and that was the end of it.
I left Germany at the end of 1979 and was an expat ever since. So, it's just since a couple of months I got back to Germany and try to learn slowly my ropes around, who is who and for or against what. So far nobody has gotten my interest. I am just not that easy to convince of anyone's honesty in their political goals and amibitions, be it Merkel, Gabriel, Schulz or Wagenknecht.
-------------------------
With regard to the article in the Jerusalem Post about the rejections of the BDS movement by German Social Democrats, I am still learning all of it. I became aware how serious this is as an issue, when I heard for the first time that "German Politicians, Media Outraged over leftist anti-Israel 'Toiletgate’". I was pointed to it by Don Midwest, btw. and tried to understand what had happened. I don't agree with the label the Jerusalem Post gave the two journalist as being extreme anti-Israel in the linked article, but what happened in Germany's parliamentary building was what I would call a pretty bad, albeit understandable performance by Sheen.
That looked like this:
[video:https://youtu.be/KQUpUGCfT3s]
Here is an explanation by Sheen of what has happened from his view point.
Ok, lotlizard, tell me who in Germany would represent then your values? Is it "Die Linke"? I understand it is not the Social Democrats, but with the incident above, I lose my hope that any German can find a way to support BDS, if it is presented to them with imo manipulative language language by Blumenthal and Sheen.
I later found a good interview with Max Blumenthal. You can find many on youtube. I think his and Sheens rhetoric is a generational matter. I can understand that Germans don't want to get manipulated and be reminded that may be there are some things wrong with Israel exactly on that day, when Germans want to remember the Kristallnacht, on a day when probably most Germans don't want to engage in an accusation of Israel politicians, but reflect on their own past sins vis a vis Jews. Max Blumenthal could have chosen another day to present their views inside the German Parliament.
I mean let's just drop the subject. I have listened to several interviews of Max Blumenthal, which makes a lot of his views very clear. He could have chosen another target, there are many German politicians, who would have deserved it more than Gysi. But helas, that's life.
Here some interview with Blumenthal that get to issues in detail and appropriately expressed. [video:https://youtu.be/nYeQwkI95yg]
No one completely represents my views but that’s not the problem
The problem, as I see it, is more basic: the moderate, “respectable” consensus is incapable of telling the truth. Every party and participant is evidently concealing and denying important aspects of reality. How can they be trusted if they are constantly lying?
BDS is just a part of a larger complex. I think it’s time to abandon the entire official post-war German guilt-driven consensus that nothing is allowed to be said, let alone done, that might impede even the most aggressive Israeli policies, or even merely make Israel look bad.
Is it too much to ask of our leaders that they finally come clean about, for example, Israel having nuclear weapons? You can’t get a straight answer on even as basic and easily determined a fact as that.
Edited to add:
n-TV and N24 pretend to be 24/7 news channels, yes? At this moment they both are running fluff pseudo-documentaries about, respectively, the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs.
Oh, I’m upset about Manchester, the mealy-mouthed talk about better integration of migrants, the usual displays of Betroffenheit . . . In the 1970s West Germany took a very hard line after terrorist attacks by the Red Army Faction a.k.a. the Baader-Meinhof gang. If the response then had been this wishy-washy —!
Ah, I’m out of sorts; I should go to bed. I am going to bed. This very minute! Nightie night!
@lotlizard
The label without the form is worse than useless - it's false advertising and outright fraud.
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.
Merkel’s course enabled Erdogan’s grab for absolute power
Her decisions have given Erdogan tremendous leverage — one could even say, have put Erdogan in a position to blackmail — the E.U. in general and Germany in particular.
Western elites support Al-Sisi’s coup in Egypt out of fear Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were going to Islamize (Islamify?) the country.
Erdogan is now doing to Turkey what Western leaders were so desperate to prevent in Egypt. Although Turkey is a member of NATO, Western leaders seem powerless to stop him. For such great success and freedom of action Erdogan can, in no small part, thank Angela Merkel.
https://www.taz.de/Kommentar-Erdoans-Machtausbau/!5411093/
"Submission" by Michel Houellebecq. Set in 2022....
What would happen if in France we had a choice between Marine Le Pen and a "moderate" of the Muslim Brotherhood party. Short but so close to our present history to present another choice where each candidate does not disclose the full agenda.
Do voters matter these days?
Does France have a "deep state" to save us from outliers? Should we want to be saved?
You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again you did not know. ~ William Wiberforce
If you can donate, please! POP Money is available for bank-to-bank transfers. Email JtC to make a monthly donation.
@lotlizard ugh, really?
ugh, really?
I knew I didn't much like Merkel; now I'm really irritated at her.
Erdogan is an unmitigated piece of shit. Hope InAntalya (from TOP) is doing OK.
"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
I hope he is doing OK also
I remember when his son was arrested (eventually found "not guilty"). This event may have triggered an investigation of InAntalya. He had posted that he was concerned and may have to stop posting at TOP. I sure miss his posts. He was one of the realists there. They're all gone now. Many have migrated over here.
Here’s Turkey flexing its muscles against Austria
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40013507
Because Erdogan can turn the migrant stream on and off, Merkel, with an election coming up, is at his mercy. All this power on the world stage is going to his head. Erdogan now seems to expect that Turkey can bully its way into the E.U., using its size and strategic role in NATO to bulldoze flat all opposition.
@lotlizard
If he's backed by the US PTB/military, he probably can. Scary...
Edit: Look at Bibi/Israel. Although I expect we'd all rather not have to, especially if we're Palestinian. Or American taxpayers whose infrastructure money is going into their weapons allowance.
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.
Added bonus (or malus): grist for the New European Right’s mill
as opponents of Muslim immigration (“unarmed invasion”) again seize an opportunity to invoke the mental image of the Turks at the gates of Vienna.
https://www.historytoday.com/walter-leitsch/1683-siege-vienna
Thanks for your response.
I agree. it's complex. No two of us are exactly the same in perspective. I appreciate what you've said.
I just hope Bernie isn’t going down the same road as Howard Dean
Howard Dean ran as the anti-war candidate and “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” in the 2003–4 election cycle.
Look what political function he’s ended up serving now:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1oECQ6r6do]
@lotlizard They took Howard
They took Howard Dean, spanked him, and stood him in a corner. Later, after he'd been excluded from public life for long enough, they brought him back in as part of their credibility-mining/demoralization strategy. He knows enough not to make trouble again.
This is, IMO, not a situation well understood. Most people talk about how he was never that left-wing anyway (true) and how he descends from a Wall St family (also true) and therefore his dissent and pushback against the Bush administration and the Democrats who went along with it was false all along (does not automatically follow and requires additional proof).
It was known, at the time he was DNC chair, that he got into screaming matches with Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi. There was a genuine conflict going on there, at least in my opinion, and I think the evidence which supports that is, that as soon as the Democrats got back into power, two of his top enemies--Rahm Emmanuel and Joe Biden--got extremely highly-placed jobs, the two closest advisors to the President--while Dean, despite Obama saying he liked him, and despite Obama having been one of the first Dean Dozen, and despite the valuable help that Dean's infrastructure gave Obama in rising to power--got nothing. He went back into the private sector and found a lobbying firm to work for.
After that the writing was on the wall, and Dean, who is clearly not a visionary like MLK nor even a self-sacrificing sort like Ed Snowden, but just a politician impatient with stupidity, fell right into line.
That's my view of it, anyway.
"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
When Dean began lobbying for the anti-Iran terrorist outfit MEK,
that was like a slap in the face. Up to that point I had still thought he was one of the better sort.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa
@lotlizard A guy like
A guy like Howard Dean, once he sees the writing on the wall, will abandon morality. He's not a hero; he's just a political figure that can be helpful as long as it's possible to push back without being thrown out of the system.
There's plenty of politicians who would rather be working in a republic, and who would rather support better policies than what we've got, but who aren't going to make any significant sacrifice toward those ends. Once they've backed off--or been backed off--they're just like all the rest.
It's one of the reasons focusing on politicians and campaigns won't work. Unless somebody has a warehouse full of Edward Snowdens and John Kiriakous in Nebraska that we can deploy to campaigns around the country.
I imagine they gave him a job because they were saving him for later, but that may be needlessly simplistic, imagining a monolithic enemy, etc.
"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
Bernie's job was to energize the base
and bring them back to the fold. Killary's stats were going south and taking the Democrats with them until Bernie joined. But Bernie ended up taking too much of the spotlight away from Her and he had to be scaled back.
Bernie's true colors are now showing.
@CB I respectfully
I respectfully disagree, but there is no proof either way.
It just depends on whether you think a good person can be corrupted or not.
In the U.S., we like to think not; we like to think that the person must have been a rotter from the beginning.
What we think about Bernie isn't all that important these days, as long as we don't keep following him (that would be a mistake). What we believe about corruption is important, and IMO, believing that anybody who could be corrupted was a bad person from the beginning anyway is a dangerous thing to believe.
"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
I don't think he was "corrupted"
I don't think he ever thought he would get as close to getting the nomination as he did.
I consider him to be a cheerleader for the
Ddemocrats. It was also an opportunity to force Her to include some of the issues he was concerned with because he knew they mattered to the people.Sanders supported the Libyan regime change (he co-sponsored a resolution)and he didn't support the resolutions to defund it. He switched during the primaries by blaming Her for going into Libya "And this is the same type of mentality that supported the war in Iraq". He is two-faced when it comes to foreign policy.
He was quite hawkish on Syria, Iran and Russia. Looks like he is now showing his true stripes.
Or maybe he understands how Washington works and is going along with the foreign policy game in order to be able to work with domestic issues.
I'm sick and tired of these fucking 'multi-dimensional games' being played by leaders - especially those on the Democratic side of the very same bench. At least the Repug side of this bench come right out and say what they stand for.
Fuck the Democrats and the horses they ride on.
@CB There seems to be
There seems to be no way to get around the idea that I'm making excuses for politicians when I make this argument, but I'm gonna keep making it because I think it's important. If we don't get that most people, when the Clintons et al knock on their door, immediately get on their knees, we're not going to make the right plans (if we ever do make plans).
"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
It’s like not fully understanding the methods of _The Godfather_
until wham! you’re watching the movie for the first time, you don’t know what’s coming, and then suddenly there it is, you’re seeing the scene with — with the — with the horse’s head in the bed.
Bernie is playing 12th dimensional chess. Leave him alone.
“John Podesta’s sister-in-law is on DC police foundation board”?
Posted at JackPine Radicals (the OP conscientiously posts a disclaimer regarding the source). Why is this relevant? The OP muses that:
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/john-podestas-ex-sister-in-law...
me, I hear for the first time of KimDotcom, because
I am the little people, who don't know much of anything, and certainly not technical stuff. So I have read by now at least the Kim Dotcom Wikipedia page.
... later on that page
... and this summary was posted not long ago:
Seth Rich murder conspiracy theories re-emerge as Kim Dotcom weighs in FAKE news or cover-up? Conspiracy theories around the murder of a young DNC staffer have exploded as internet sleuths uncover new online clues.
... my eyes are glazing over.
So, I try to find Kim Schmitz quotes in German. Of course I only found quotes in English. They are "a good read". Though the brainquote site is bad and doesn't even add when and where and in what context the quotes were made.
These among others:
Dotcom Claims Victory Even as Court Backs Extradition to U.S. - by Matthew Brockett - February 20, 2017, 12:18 AM EST
Wow, what a victory ... jeez, something wrong with that or what?
oh, sigh, me think my German fellow compatriot Kim Schmitz shouldn't tweet so much.
Because it makes his mind and body sick ... and destroys his family.
I'll give him my little teddybear here. May be it helps him think and makes him leave the internet behind for good. What I have read so far, the little bit, is really very sad, if not tragic. My guts tell me, that he and Trump are of the same cloth, one of them with brains, the other with less, both contradicting themselves quite a lot, one with a bit more social compassion than the other.
But my guts tell me there must be a deal behind it and tell me that Kim Schmitz might want to redeem himself and do the right thing to save the reputation of Seth Rich. The timing is "on the right pitch".
Lemme think: Fake or not fake?
(PS: Sorry, I can't get my eyes off this little guy - he pulls on my mama instincts)
Only time will tell
To be honest, I really debated about posting this in the first place. I do know that Kim Dotcom has an ax to grind with the United States over his site Megauploads. But I keep asking myself is why would he wade into this if there is nothing there? We shall see.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
of course, gulfgal98, I am not at all against you posting this,
after all I learned a lot from it. Not enough, but I will wait what more is written about him in Germany and continue digging a bit into his work.
Unfortunately I am not really capable to distinguish between who is for what and for whom. There is so much money and ego battles involved, a "little person" like me just drops any attempt to try to understand it.
And your question why would he walk into it, if there is nothing there, is justified, imo. Either there is something to it and we will wait for it to come out, or there isn't, then I think he has gotten cold feet and wants to save his skin and make a deal with the US. Germany is a bit more "humane" in its sentences of the courts, the US is rather cruel and and threatening. May be he is scared.
Too many dead bodies around politicians (Democrats, for Chrissakes, shudder). Sigh.
Kim dot com has always been a headline grabber
Thanks for the update gulfgal98, I don't like Kimdotcom but I respect what he stands for, since the 90s. File sharing is NOT A CRIME. Middle finger Michael Eisner.
RIP Seth, justice awaits. Circumstantial evidence, there is a lot of it. If kdc has hard evidence (what?), I'll be really surprised. The guy definitely knows how to transfer files efficiently and privately, thanks goodness. I am on the side of kdc against the corporate media oligarchs, he is correct about our constitution, our bill of rights, compared to what they do, what they've done.
California is revolting at the moment, I am trying to figure out what to do about it, if anything.
Edit: to fix typo and add revolting link to County Committees, in case anyone in California wants to voice support for theirs. Mine is Clinton pwned and operated, because money. Sorry about that. I remember looking up what it would cost to become a delegate during the primaries, LOL. GoFundMe? So BigTech gets their cut? No, that is part of the problem, not the solution in my view. How many berniecrats took on debt to get to the convention and participate? I hope that number is zero, bigly.
love peace
@eyo I absolutely agree that
I absolutely agree that file-sharing is not a crime.
I just don't know whether all this is a set-up, rather like that investigator, Wheeler, who came out and said he had proof, and then retracted it. That's a well-known way to discredit a story. Smells of the police state.
"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
There is way more evidence
that Russia influenced the election than what this conspiracy theory alleges. What hooey.
What evidence?
When has anyone provided evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC, Podesta or anyone else and were the source of the leaks provided to wikileaks?
I haven't seen any hard evidence or even soft evidence.
The report or intelligence assessment of Russian involvement was a joke. 16 pages of nothing other than supposition and RT posted stories that were anti-Hillary.
As for allegations Russia hacked the election vote itself has been debunked by - President Obama - who admitted there was no evidence whatsoever for that false claim.
As for the claim that Russia colluded with Trump, even Diane Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Intel Comm. admitted she has not been shown any evidence to substantiate that charge.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/19/feinstein_no_evidence_...
It is absurd to claim that Russia was definitively behind interference in our elections, colluded with Trump, hacked the DNC and Podesta emails, etc. based on what we know now.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
@Steven D @Steven D I never said
I never said anything about proof the Russians did it. Just that the evidence is no less compelling than the Seth Rich business. I would not doubt for a second that Russians ran an organized disinformation campaign in the US. Why the hell wouldn't they ? It's cheap, easy and effective. They are not an ally and they are run by a spook.
Now where's the evidence that Seth Rich provided the e-mails to wiki leaks ? I guess we have to ask Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity because Assange won't say ?
All's I am saying is, if you don't believe Russia tried to influence our election that's fine. It is a reasoned and sound judgement based on the information we have available. Seth Rich being offed because he leaked DNC e-mails ? Not so much...
Assange
having said the following could have many meanings, I agree with you. It is not proof, and don't think it was meant to be proof, that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks.
But it must have some kind of meaning.
What do you think it means?
@Blueslide Opposition research does
Opposition research does tend to influence elections, no matter who does 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
@Blueslide It's a good thing I didn
It's a good thing I didn't know opposition research was a treacherous act warranting a declaration of war when I did it for a candidate for the Maryland Senate.
"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
@Blueslide Makes me wonder what's
Makes me wonder what's going to happen the next time a journalist or an opposition researcher uncovers information that an establishment politician would rather the public didn't know. Are they going to be accused of being Russian moles? Traitors?
"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
I watch all of Assange's interviews
Last summer one of them included a past UK ambassador (sorry I don't recall the name). He claimed to have come to the US where he received a thumb drive of data which contained the bulk of the DNC leaks. He would not confirm that he received them from Seth Rich, but he didn't deny it. However, Julian has repeatedly and consistently stated he did not receive the DNC leaks from Russia.
Those that suggest Russia as the source (surprisingly many here on c99 - like the previous comment?), have NO evidence. The FBI never accessed nor examined the DNC computer. The evidence of the Russian's did it is on par with Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
It may be that T-rump and the Russian oligarchs are playing funny money and have a laundering scheme...but influence the election? That was the DNC and Hellery's doing, and the leaks prove it!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
The UK ambassador was
Craig Murray.
Assange has repeatedly said that these were "leaks," not "hacks" and they originated in the US. Leaks mean that they came from someone who had authorized access to the files. A leak could have come from someone like Seth Rich who had authorized access to the system. As another exmaple, Edward Snowden was a leaker, not a hacker. Hacks would mean that someone from outside authorized personnel broke into the system. Some DNC files came from a hacker using the name Guccifer2. He was not an authorized user of the system. I believe Wikileaks has been very clear in differentiating between leaks and hacks. But I think we need to be sure we are using the correct terms when we speak of them here.
The second point I want to make is that no one has questioned the validity of the documents themselves. While that is not important in the context of the Seth Rich case, what is important right now is who leaked these documents because if it was Seth Rich, then the whole narrative that Russia hacked our election falls apart. This is the main reason the PTB and the MSM are doing everything in their power to kill this story on line and totally ignore in the MSM.
(edited to clarify a misleading sentence)
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thanks gg
I forgot the ambassadors name and didn't want to dig back and find it.
Jimmy Dore has been covering the story too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKawchvHsEg (24 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQFZOz_TYF8 (15 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8s4DJmVAc4 (14 min)
as has Debbie (sane progressive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhQ_kuAcItI (25 min)
but my internet has been iffy this week and I've not watched/listened to these yet.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
@Lookout Has anybody yet
Has anybody yet countered Bill Binney's argument?
It's here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence...
I would tend to believe the man who used to be our top coder (and top codebreaker against the Soviet Union) when he says the "Russian hack" is the load of hooey.
"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
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Lol, they probably would try to refute (edit: these guys)!
From your link (and thanks for posting it!):
They'd never bamboozle him, though. Could misrepresent and misquote him, as seems so common...
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.
@Lookout
I've seen it implied in various articles on this subject that Murray's character may be doubtful because it was said merely that he'd lost his previous post due to 'misconduct', with his having 'been cleared' possibly mentioned; Murray sacrificed his career as an Ambassador in the British Foreign Office to speak out against the use of torture by US allies and to promote diplomacy over war.
The US refused him admittance to the country to chair at a World Beyond War conference last September, forcing him to apply through the State Department - and Murray makes the point that Russia, despite his having criticized Putin in various publications, has never done so. But it appears that his criticisms of US neo-liberalism, neo-conservative foreign policy and attacks on civil liberties might be officially considered to constitute dangerous ideas in 'the land of the free'.
Please note the positions which have been held by many of the people signing the joint statement copied below.
And who better to serve as intermediary for a whistle-blower such as Seth Rich?
(Best read in full at source, devices used permitting, but thought I'd better include some of the essential points to be sure that people can read them.)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/u-s-denies-entry-former-british-a...
I know who I'd find more trustworthy, between the people who've shown integrity and the known liars and criminals the former have helped more fully reveal as such.
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.
@Ellen North How did they actually
How did they actually get him here, I wonder?
Well, now that it's known he was the go-between--though that's not the official truth of course--I bet he won't be allowed back.
It'll be interesting seeing the establishment try to justify not letting him in without admitting he was the go-between to a leak, not a Russian hack, of DNC documents.
"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
Regarding the JFK assasination.
It wasn't just the spooks who had it in for Kennedy. The business craporate cartels did, too. Shortly before Dallas Joseph Kennedy warned his son that John had pissed off the steel PTBs. The union workers were on strike, and John favored them over the biz boys. Big biz has always feared the word: nationalize. It was threatened and a kill contract went out. JFK never had a chance. The lords always pull this shite when the serfs get uppity. Rec'd!!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
What is that?
theory number 800 on who killed Kennedy.
New meme
@lotlizard, back off of Bernie!
Are you for real? Do you have any idea how nutso dangerous the multinational craporate sharks are?? Their bought and paid for captured media? Until more powerful voices for us serfs come out of the closet and speak up, Sanders is it. He has got a major target on his back. These bizness yahoos were nasty during JFK. They are a million times worse and more powerful now!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
@orlbucfan Certainly, that's true.
Certainly, that's true. But that does not mean that we can afford to leave lies unchallenged, even when we care about the person giving them voice. And Bernie, if he is who I think he is, wouldn't want us to.
"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
"Until more powerul voices ... Sanders is it" bummer
thank you for defending the one you think is defenseless, that is kind.
Serf here (waves hi), still waiting for Godot, but good talk.
talk talk talk
Did you ever see the back and forth here where I tried to point to Bernie's life work of legislation passed? Unfortunately it wasn't there. So he is great for talking, so was Bloody Obama, don't think there will ever be enough voters to raise enough money that will defeat the oligarchy.
Remember "Raising the bar" speech Michelle Bloody Obama yammered during Obama's first run? It was describing what they would do, and they did it. And The Bern campaigned for Obama, twice. So what if he talks opposition after they get elected? Results are results. It is immoral to take money off the unemployed and retired, then turn around and help get an oligarch elected, that's what I think. It is not right, it is deceptive and wrong. bad bernie no cookie.
Peace
Don't forget Bernie's nickname:
"The Amendment King." He gets things done in other ways.
" He gets things done in other ways." Like what?
thanks, has anyone ever taken time out to list those things? I guess first it would be beneficial to define the meanings of "getting things done", and "other ways", but I'm willing to work up a list of accomplishments to post and bookmark somewhere for future reference, in case I ever start believing there's a democracy to participate in again.
I think a Bern List would be great, I am willing to help but failed to find anything significant in the records (as opposed to in the press) myself, and I went pretty pretty far back. For those who say it's a marathon, well I say it's approaching the finish, and if you don't start sprinting soon many more will lose, suffer, die. "That's the system."
Peace
It's not too hard to find.
Here's one example.
This is the better one.
Taibbi's article from 2005.
Please, no more news articles
thanks but I've read enough news articles about Bernie to last a lifetime. What I did was go back in the congressional record and look up legislation he authored that has passed.
I think there was none, but can't remember exactly right now. He has co-sponsored a ton of bills if I recall correctly, some of which did pass. Like post office naming and stuff like that. I just remember coming away being unimpressed after really digging for the data. I'm not really interested in doing it twice, maybe I can go back and look up the conversation to find links and such, just nenni ekki to do it alone again right now. bernt
I think you're missing my point.
Taibbi explains this quite well.
I read that article soon after Bernie announced. Re-reading it now, I'm even more aware of how effed-up the system is.
I'm not sure what you expect of Sanders now that this is all in plain sight, thanks to his run. I'll admit to having been a little idealistic during his candidacy, but that was before I truly understood how this all works. What I've learned since leaves me with even more respect for what he still tries to accomplish. He's not our messiah, people. The entire system needs to implode.
Pages