“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Silencing Assange: Hillary Clinton’s 1000 points of darkness

Assange's Fate - Antiwar.com Original

The left turns on him, the right embraces him

The saga of Julian Assange seems to be drawing to a climax – one that will decide the fate of this historic whistleblower who, for years, has been a giant thorn in the side of governments everywhere. 

His role in exposing the machinations of the US government over the years earned him the plaudits of liberals – until the Bush era ended, and he started exposing the crimes of the Obama administration and – most pointedly – the hypocrisy and venality of Hillary Clinton and her journalistic camarilla. Now we see right-wing figures like Sean Hannity and – yes! – Donald Trump praising and defending him, while the ostensible liberals take up the cry of the Clinton campaign that he’s a “pawn of the Kremlin” and a “rapist.” Even Glenn Greenwald, formerly a comrade-in-arms, who together with Assange helped Edward Snowden evade the not-so-loving arms of Uncle Sam, has lately sought to distance himself from the founder of WikiLeaks (over the value of “curation”). Nice timing, Glenn!
Funny how that works.

Now we see that the Ecuadorian government, which has provided sanctuary for Assange ever since the frame-up “rape” charges by the Swedes were brought, is succumbing to pressure from Washington to silence him. As Assange released the now famous Podesta emails, that – among other things – exposed the collusion of the media and the Clinton campaign in delicious detail, John Kerry demanded that the Ecuadorians cut off Assange’s Internet access – and they meekly complied. Of course, since leftist Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has openly endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and openly abhors Trump, this is hardly surprising: this is how the left operates internationally, as well as in this country – if you stray from the party line it doesn’t take long before the knives come out, aimed directly at one’s back.

In any case, Correa’s betrayal seems to have been short-circuited by the ever-resourceful Assange, who is still releasing incriminating emails. This is someone with a Plan!

Coincident with all this is the culmination of the long “legal” process initiated by the Swedish government, which is falsely accusing Assange of “rape.” He was supposed to have met with Swedish prosecutors on Monday, but has put off the meeting until November 14 – after the US elections. 

Given Sweden’s bizarre laws on the subject, and the provenance of his accusers, the smear campaign aimed at Assange has zero credibility. No one believes these charges (and remember, he has never been formally charged) aren’t motivated by Washington’s stated desire to get him extradited to the US on “espionage” charges – and there isn’t anyone who thinks that the British government (which has spent millions making sure he stays holed up in Ecuador’s embassy) wouldn’t do so given half a chance.

Is it a coincidence that the way the Establishment tries to destroy those who oppose it is by hurling sex charges at them? They did the same thing to Dan Ellsberg: it’s the oldest trick in the book. 

Equally ridiculous are the accusations that Assange is a “Russian agent.” To begin with, despite the US government’s propaganda, there isn’t a lick of real evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC emails, or any of the other emails published by WikiLeaks It could just as easily have been an insider. The fact of the matter is that, although they try to project the illusion of their own omniscience , they just don’t know.

What’s instructive is that the liberal media, which is not even bothering to hide its support for Hillary Clinton, is echoing Washington’s campaign to discredit Assange as a Kremlin tool. And of course the neoconservatives, who are solidly in Clinton’s camp, have always hated Assange, and are glad to join the chorus.

Assange has done more than any single figure to expose the machinations of governments worldwide to murder and plunder the rest of us: as the declared enemy of the powerful, he is their principal target – and it behooves those of us who defend liberty and transparency to rally around the banner of Wikileaks. 

Assange has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since August of 2012, with governments all over the world – and especially our government – determined to get him, smear him, and discredit him by any means necessary. Yet he continues to expose them, even in these straitened circumstances, without regard for his own health, happiness, or ultimate fate. He is a hero for our times – in an age when the heroic seems entirely absent. And he is now in more danger than ever before: what with the leftist Ecuadorian government, eager to curry favor with Hillary Clinton, wavering in his defense, and with Mrs. Clinton herself wondering “Can’t we just drone this guy?” 

Assange’s fate, whatever it turns out to be, limns our own: if he goes down, then, in a sense, so do we all. Because what that means is that there’s no room for truth-tellers in our world, and no tolerance for heroes. And that’s not the kind of world I care to live in.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richertand David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

Read more by Justin Raimondo

114 comments:

  1. Speaking of bullshit:

    Any word on the USS Gulf of Tonkin being attacked by cruise missiles “fired” from our newest existential threat from Yemen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Saw an article yesterday (Times of Israel?) where some American general is saying he is convinced Iran is actually behind those 'missiles' launched at the destroyer.

      The bullshit just keeps coming.

      It's frustrating. What can you do about it?

      .

      Delete
    2. .

      That the lies, the propaganda, the persecution of whistleblowers will continue under Clinton is a given.

      SOL

      .

      Delete
    3. IF missiles WERE fired who but IRAN would be behind it ?

      Delete
    4. .

      The fixated farmer once again displays his wares.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      The voice of the sheeple is once again heard baaaing in the west, eager to buy what talking points frontpagemag has to offer, once again denying US aggression and shifting blame to the Iranians.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      From the Brain Trust Files...

      US plunges into war with Yemen

      By Stephen Kinzer October 19, 2016

      Anyone who believes the United States is not fighting enough wars in the Middle East can be happy this week. We have just plunged into another one. Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen. The Pentagon, a practiced master of Orwellian language, calls this bombing “limited self-defense.”


      American forces were already involved in Yemen’s civil war. Since 2002, our drone attacks have reportedly killed more than 500 Yemenis, including at least 65 civilians. We are also supplying weapons and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, which has killed thousands of Yemenis in bombing raids over the last year and a half — including last week’s attack on a funeral in which more than 100 mourners were killed.

      Shortly after the funeral bombing, a couple of missiles fired at the USS Mason, an American naval vessel patrolling close to the Yemeni coast, fell harmlessly into the sea. The United States immediately blamed Houthis, a group of Yemenis we consider hostile. They vehemently denied responsibility. Even the Pentagon admitted that it could not be certain who had fired the missiles. None of that stopped us from launching what we described as a retaliatory attack. With that, we became an active belligerent in yet another war. This brings us several million new enemies...


      {...}

      Delete
    7. .

      {...}

      American forces are already fighting, carrying out drone attacks, and “advising” ground troops in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Mali, and Somalia. No vital American interest is at stake in any of those conflicts. Nor will our security be affected by the outcome of Yemen’s civil war. The impulse to fight there — and to control the Persian Gulf — is simply the latest result of our long campaign to shape the fate of foreign nations.

      The official justification for last week’s raids — self-defense — sounded like what President Lyndon Johnson declared after the 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident. “Hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of Tonkin,” he said, “have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply.” Years later it became clear that those “hostile actions” were largely fabricated.

      The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war.

      In 1980, President Jimmy Carter declared that any challenge to American positions in the Persian Gulf “will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States” and “will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” That may have made sense at the time, when we were in global confrontation with the Soviet Union and relied on oil supplies from Gulf nations. It no longer does. Today our naval presence in the Persian Gulf serves mainly to increase tensions, escalate conflicts, and make negotiated solutions more difficult. Almost inevitably, it draws us into local conflicts. We secure waterways through which oil is transported to India, China, and Japan — none of which contribute a cent to defray the cost.

      In Yemen, our strategic objectives are unclear, and our exit strategy is unclear. A 72-hour cease-fire, which began Wednesday night, offers a glimmer of hope, but Yemenis are unlikely to forget that we joined Saudi Arabia in bombing their country. The only important beneficiaries of our escalation are the Saudis and the US arms industry.

      Many Americans would like to end our Middle East conflicts. Instead we have just entered a new one.


      Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.

      .

      Delete
    8. Front Page Magazine ?

      ????

      I don't see a reference to Front Page Magazine, a good magazine by the way, in my statement.

      YOU are reading Front Page Magazine ?

      After what YOU, at your worst, once said of Jewish culture ?

      Just answer my question (you are sounding more and more like a Democrat, always pivoting) -

      IF missiles WERE fired - (at our ship) - who but IRAN would be behind it ?

      Are the Yemenis producing cruise missiles now ?

      Where is the Yemeni cruise missile factory ?

      Delete
    9. Quirk won't answer the question.

      He was just harrumphing again.

      Delete
    10. Shit, Mr. Harrumph Q, I just checked Front Page and I can't find an article there about Yemen/Iran at all as far as I scrolled down.

      Are you OK ?

      Always looking out for you.......

      Delete
    11. There's an article about exploding corpses in Venezuelan hospitals, though, that shows how bad things are there -

      Corpses 'Exploding' In Decrepit Venezuelan Hospitals
      Foreshadowing socialism's final days.
      October 19, 2016 David Paulin

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264530/corpses-exploding-decrepit-venezuelan-hospitals-david-paulin

      I'll never abandon you to a Venezuelan hospital, Quirk, you know that.

      Delete
    12. Hey ! Wait !

      I did finally find this by scrolling way down through 'More Stories' -

      From Yemen to Turtle Bay
      How Iran is driving the U.S. out of the Middle East.
      October 14, 2016 Caroline Glick 30

      Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 

      Off the coast of Yemen and at the UN Security Council we are seeing the strategic endgame of Barack Obama’s administration. And it isn’t pretty.

      Since Sunday, Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen have attacked US naval craft three times in the Bab al-Mandab, the narrow straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Bab al-Mandab controls maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and ultimately controls the Suez Canal.

      Whether the Iranians directed these assaults or simply green-lighted them is really beside the point. The point is that these are Iranian strikes on the US. The Houthis would never have exposed themselves to US military retaliation if they hadn’t been ordered to do so by their Iranian overlords.

      The question is why has Iran chosen to open up an assault on the US? The simple answer is that Iran has challenged US power at the mouth of the Red Sea because it believes that doing so advances its strategic aims in the region.....


      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264508/yemen-turtle-bay-caroline-glick

      Wow, you must REALLY be reading Front Page !

      I am, of course, pleased.

      But my question remains -

      IF missiles WERE fired - (at our ship) - who but IRAN would be behind it ?

      Delete
    13. .

      Whether the Iranians directed these assaults or simply green-lighted them is really beside the point. The point is that these are Iranian strikes on the US. The Houthis would never have exposed themselves to US military retaliation if they hadn’t been ordered to do so by their Iranian overlords.

      The question is why has Iran chosen to open up an assault on the US? The simple answer is that Iran has challenged US power at the mouth of the Red Sea because it believes that doing so advances its strategic aims in the region...


      It's called logic. I've seen Horowitz and frntpagemag before. I know their MO. I've also read Caroline Glick and know what to expect from her. As a matter of fact, I saw the original article in the JP a day or two ago. I knew they (Israel, Glick, frontpagemag, Idaho Bob) would be towing the US party line as long as that party line is an attack on Iran. The odds were with me. Almost a sure thing.

      First of all, the question you ask is absurd. In her convoluted reasoning (i.e. from basis that anything that happens in the ME is Iran's fault) Glick at least points out the absurdity of the Houthis attacking the US destroyer, especially with the world's attention recently focused on Yemen and role the US and SA play there.

      However, going along with your silly hypothetical, the Houthis are not the only ones fighting the exiled government there. The Houthis along with the Southern Movement, a secessionist group formed by ex-Yemeni military, that has been fighting the central government for decades, the ex-president Saleh, and al Qeada are all fighting government forces. Al Qeada, the Southern Movement (SM) and the Houthi all control large portions of the country. The Houthi and the SM are allies in the fight but it's the SM that controls the area around the Bab al Mandeb. The Houthi are concentrated a little farther north. So IF there were were missiles fired, it is uncertain who fired them. It could have even been a false flag operation by the US or SA. IF anybody fired the missiles.

      IF there were missiles fired, they couldn't have been very sophisticated as they didn't come close to hitting anything. And there are no reports of the US launching any surface to air missiles to take down these bogies. One would think that IF Iran actually was instructing the Houthi to attack a US destroyer, they would have at least provided them with the equipment to do it rather than a few bottle rockets.

      .

      Delete
  2. When Hillary laughs at the fact that Muslim countries throw gays off buildings... #debatenight

    http://americanlookout.com/jpb-hillary-laughed-when-trump-mentioned-fact-that-islamic-countries-throw-gays-off-buildings-videos/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She should laugh.

      If they got hold of Our Lady of Lesbos they'd have her in a pit, the stones a-flying.

      Delete
    2. O Good Lord, look at her cheek dimples in the still shot at the end of your video, Doug.....horizontal !

      With normals they are vertical.

      And she tries so hard to look angelic all decked out in white.....the Devil in Disguise !

      For comparison, see pic of a normal with dimples here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimple

      Delete
    3. Plastic Surgery, Plastic Personality.

      Delete
    4. Dimple on chin -
      The devil within
      Dimples on cheek
      She's a Freak ! -
      (If they're on the level) -
      She's the Devil !

      Delete
    5. http://surgeryvip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/hillary-clinton-facelift.jpg

      Delete
  3. Excellence in the last thread -


    Doug Thu Oct 20, 12:22:00 AM EDT
    I hate the spray on face that Megyn and all the rest wear these days, but it sure does wonder for Hillary's skin on TV.

    Another year or two, and she'll be hiring Drywall Finishers.



    Doug Thu Oct 20, 12:45:00 AM EDT
    wonders


    Quirk Thu Oct 20, 12:55:00 AM EDT
    .

    I agree.

    Last debate, I said her hair looks a hell of a lot better.

    This one, her make-up was definitely a step up. Whatever she is paying these guys for the camouflage is definitely worth it.

    If she keeps this up, it won't be long before she will be forced to start beating Bill off with her broom.

    .



    sam Thu Oct 20, 01:09:00 AM EDT
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rasmussen has Trump up 3 this morning -

    LATIMES POLL: ALL TIED UP...
    RASMUSSEN: TRUMP +3...
    *IBD/TIPP: TRUMP +1...
    *Was most accurate in 2012....DRUDGE



    IBD, the most accurate poll of all 4 years ago, has him up 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think The Donald may have doomed himself in Nevada with that thoughtless 'bad hombres' remark.

      And doomed Heck too. His opponent is an Hispanic woman, selected by 'Dirty' Harry.

      Nevada is 25% Hispanic now. Bad place, bad time to use what really is an innocent term.

      It won't be taken that way down there though.

      Delete
    2. La Raza is an uber-racist organization.

      Delete
    3. 1830-40; < Spanish, by dissimilation and intrusion of b <

      Vulgar Latin *omne, for Latin hominem,

      accusative of homō man, Homo
      omberor hombre

      Delete
  5. Trump is up and at 'em at a rally in Ohio (I think it is) already this morning.

    Say what you will about The Donald, no one can deny for a guy his age he is a world class energy system.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mediaite
    Hugh Hewitt: Trump knocked himself out with “rigged” election claims

    Jim Geraghty
    Hillary Clinton, 2002: George W. Bush was “selected, not elected”

    David Harsanyi
    The media’s hypocritical moralizing about Trump has become unbearable

    from Hot Air

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blast from the past: Al Gore explains why he won’t concede election

      October 20, 2016

      The tidal wave of harrumphing over Donald Trump’s refusal to endorse the probity of the voting and vote-counting to come is quite amusing once you see this. More


      Delete
    2. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/blast_from_the_past_al_gore_explains_why_he_wont_concede_election.html

      Delete
    3. Trump's Scary Answer About Not Accepting Election Results: Gail Collins, NY Times

      Media Seems to Have Forgotten Gore's 2000 Challenge: John Hinderaker, PowerLine

      Delete
  7. No, Hillary Clinton, The Supreme Court’s Heller Decision Wasn’t About Toddlers

    Hillary Clinton claimed the Heller decision was about toddlers. It was actually about whether a 66-year-old police officer had the right to keep a gun at home.

    October 19, 2016 By Sean Davis

    During the final presidential debate on Wednesday night, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told another unbelievable whopper about the country’s gun laws. In her answer to a question about her views on gun rights, Clinton said she opposed the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which recognized the constitutional right for individuals to own and carry firearms, because it was about whether toddlers should have guns.

    Yes, she said that.

    It’s a lie so absurd that I honestly don’t know where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot: No, the Heller decision was not about toddlers. It had nothing to do with toddlers. Nothing. It’s no coincidence that the word “toddler” doesn’t appear in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case. Nor does the word “toddler” appear anywhere in the 110-page transcript of the case’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Because the case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.

    So what was the Heller case really about? It was about whether Dick Anthony Heller, a 66-year-old police officer, should be legally allowed to own and bear a personal firearm to defend himself and his family at home. That’s it. Here’s how the Supreme Court described the facts of the case:........

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/no-hillary-clinton-supreme-courts-heller-decision-wasnt-toddlers/

    She's coming for your home defense weapons, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trump is wonderful in Ohio on Fox now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. heh:

    "He seemed to believe, right to the end, that Mrs. Clinton had spent the last 30 years as dictator of America, or perhaps the world, instead of being a single member of the Senate, and then a cabinet official. No doubt this reflects Mr. Trump’s own view of what the American presidency is. It is a belief as preadolescent as everything else about his candidacy. To reward this tired demagogue with a vote would be as absurd as electing Dennis the Menace to the highest office in the land."

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clinton-trump-third-debate-election-2016/the-bullfight-in-vegas

    ReplyDelete
  10. What an incredibly stupid little paragraph, Ash, by a dying newspaper !

    **********


    October 20, 2016
    Can the American Center Hold?
    By Peter Skurkiss

    The main aftereffect of the 2016 election could well be found in the lines of Yeats' prophetic The Second Coming, where the Irish poet wrote: 

        Turning and turning in the widening gyre

        The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
        Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
        Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
        The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
        The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
        The best lack all conviction, while the worst
        Are full of passionate intensity.

    Will things in America fall apart? Will anarchy be loosed on the land? Can the center hold?
    There is a convergence of several trends that make it unwise to dismiss such questions as out of hand.

    Look at just two of them -- debt and the question of legitimacy..... 

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/can_the_american_center_hold.html

      Delete
  11. jeeze, I wonder how much Trump is getting paid by Clinton to keep up with the diversions. Why would the media want to ponder Clinton when Trump is the gift that just keeps on giving. Just today:

    "I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doug, oh Doug, you love the crazy conspiracy stuff. Drop that wacko youtube Doctor going on about Aunt Bea and how she informs us on Hillary's Parkinson's and grab on to the grand conspiracy - Trump is in Clinton's pocket. It's all a ruse to guarantee a POTUS Clinton.

      Delete
  12. "I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,”

    Ash, YOU ABOSOLUTE DUMB FUCK, he was joking. Everybody got a big laugh out of it. In the next sentence he began his statement about what he would do if there was evidence of massive fraud, etc., which sounded just like what Gore and Bush did, file a lawsuit, ask for recounts, fight it out in the courts.

    Go watch his entire speech from Ohio this morning.....

    YOU IDIOT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do I make my letters larger ?

      Delete
    2. .

      Actually, you really shouldn't be drawing attention to yourself so.

      Love


      Quirk.

      .

      Delete
    3. I LOVE YOU TOO, QUIRK

      Ever,

      bob



      Delete
    4. HERE ASH:

      LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Rally in Delaware, OH 10/20/16

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki6lvK1_Hpg

      Delete
    5. I know your attention span sucks, Ash, but you only need listen to the first 20 minutes or so.

      Delete
    6. And don't worry so, Quirk. I'll be true to you, no matter how much attention from others I attract.

      Delete
    7. .

      I checked the first link.

      I assume you would know I wasn't about to read the whole elongated article in the following posts.

      To me it looked like they had a light in the podium. Her's was on and his was off.

      Didn't look like a teleprompter to me.

      .

      Delete
  13. ASHISADUMBFUCKASHISADUMBFUCKASHISADUMBFUCK

    ReplyDelete
  14. Meanwhile, Malik Obama, among others, and not a DF like Ash, is wondering if Hillary was cheating again last night.

    Did she have a small teleprompter imbedded in her podium ?

    Photo evidence presented.

    https://twitter.com/OBAMAMALIK_/status/789013406552584192

    ReplyDelete
  15. BUSTED! Hillary Caught Constantly Reading the Script from Her Podium Teleprompter

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=did+hillary+us+a+teleprompter+in+the+last+debate+%3F&form=EDGTCT&qs=PF&cvid=6f98732f22184fc69a60b53a4b3fce12&pq=did+hillary+us+a+teleprompter+in+the+last+debate+%3F

    I also found this, from what should be Quirk's favorite site, The Daily Sheeple -

    "Podiumgate": How the Clintons Rigged the First ...
    www.thedailysheeple.com/...rigged-the-first-presidential-debate_102016

    Hillary Clinton’s teleprompter at the debate ... The last debate saw Hillary ... For all I know it could all be a rigged game that is designed to distract us ....

    PodiumGate - How the Clinton's rigged the first Presidential Debate

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/podiumgate-how-the-clintons-rigged-the-first-presidential-debate_102016


    I now step aside, hoping to read Quirk's opinion of this new issue.

    Have the sheeple been sheared again, Quirk ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Whoops, placed this above in the wrong reply slot.

      I checked the first link.

      I assume you know I wasn't about to read the whole elongated article in the following posts.

      To me, it looked like they had lights in their podiums. Her's was on and his was off.

      Didn't look like a teleprompter to me.

      .

      Delete
  16. Is Ash really dumb enough to believe Hillary DOESN'T have Parkinson's?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Crazy conspiracy: Believing your lying eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. .

    [Personal opinion of Quirk, speaking ex-BrainTrust, at a critical time in history]

    Change in the US political system appears dead for the next 4 years.

    What is evident though is that this election pointed to the 'possibility' of change in the future, not by working within the existing system but rather outside of it. We were presented with two examples of how to attack the current establishment. Both of them used populist rhetoric to gin up the electorate. Unfortunately, both candidates were flawed vessels and ill fitted to the major task they chose to pursue.

    Bernie Sanders chose a hard left, liberal approach with a populist message. His was a message that appealed to younger populations and in short amounted to leveling the playing field between rich and poor. It centered on trade, minimum wage, jobs, tax reform, and the expansion of entitlements.

    He used crowd funding through small donations from individual voters to finance his campaign and proved that way can actually work. Unfortunately, he was relatively unknown and considered a bit of a nut when he first got into the race, and by the time he started to become known and gain momentum it was too late to make up ground in the arcane jumble that is the Democrat's primary process. Also, as an outsider he gained the enmity of the establishment and their candidate, Clinton. We saw what that meant with the leaks from Wikileaks.

    His run did provide an example of how corrupt the US political system actually is and should help any new outsider who chooses to follow the same path. Unfortunately, in the end, having lost he bowed to pressure and was co-opted back into the same corrupt system he had fought.

    Donald Trump ran a campaign that was all over the map on the issues and slightly incoherent. He too chose a populist route but seemed to emphasize a darker vision, nativist and nationalistic, non-interventionist and at the same time aggressive. He was a man who appeared both emotionally and intellectually challenged.

    In debates, he was unfocused and lacked debating skills. All through the campaign and the debates, he continued to leave too many chips on the table. When concentration on issues and talking points was called for all he could manage was grumbles and insults. While he blamed everyone and everything for his failures, in the end he was the biggest impediment to his own success.

    What Trump did show though is that a very rich individual willing to spend his own money can run an independent campaign free from entanglements and go toe to toe with the established major parties.

    Sanders and likely Trump will have lost in their bids but they have proved that when the public gets angry enough it is possible for outsiders to fight the two-party system we have today. Hopefully, with the lessons learned in this election there is a chance for another outsider to run, maybe even to successfully run, in the future.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can either of those two really be considered 'outsiders' in light of the fact that they chose to run 'inside'? Naw, they are blowing smoke as straw men inside the system.

      A true outsider will be neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

      Delete
    2. Was Hillary using a small teleprompter in her podium during the last debate, Quirk ?

      Your opinion would be appreciated as I know you were in industrial espionage at one time.

      Delete
    3. .

      Can either of those two really be considered 'outsiders' in light of the fact that they chose to run 'inside'?


      Yes.

      .

      Delete

    4. [Personal opinion of Quirk, speaking ex-BrainTrust, at a critical time in history]

      Signed,

      Leo T

      Delete
    5. In your view, then, was Obama an 'outsider'?

      Delete
    6. Ash could run as a true outsider, and the rest of us could squabble and put forth our various opinions wrt counting all the ways he is.

      Delete
    7. ...if he weren't a Canadian.

      Delete
    8. "What Trump did show though is that a very rich individual willing to spend his own money can run an independent campaign free from entanglements and go toe to toe with the established major parties."
      ===
      The amounts of cash necessary keep going up, but they are still miniscule for a true multi-billionaire.
      (Trump might not qualify.)
      It's always been a puzzle for me in one sense, but not at all in another:

      Why would a sane billionaire expose himself to such madness and danger?

      ...unless he got a G. Washington gene implant.

      Delete
  19. All of Ash's elder relatives look like this:

    http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Hillary+Clinton+Final+Presidential+Debate+lJScoiAp9Bll.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huma, like the Big Black Guy, is anxiously pointing toward the EXIT

      Delete
    2. Siri is blaring on her pink Eye Phone:

      Get Out! GET OUT!

      Delete
  20. Donald Trump has continued to float the possibility of challenging the results of the presidential election if there is a "questionable result," while promising to embrace the outcome "if I win".

    ...

    Senator John McCain of Arizona, who lost the 2008 presidential election to Democrat Barack Obama, issued a strong statement saying that accepting the election result is "the American way".

    ...

    Mr Trump's vice presidential running mate, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, said Mr Trump "will accept the outcome" because he is going to win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FLASHBACK: Gore explains why he won't concede election...
      Last week Hillary agreed he 'won' 2000...
      Hillary 2002: Bush 'Selected, Not Elected'...
      8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen...
      Kerry Thinks Bush Rigged 2004!
      Scarborough Lashes Out At Media Hypocrisy...
      CADDELL: Press Have Selective Memory...
      POLL: 72% have concerns over voting security...
      Texas fraud prompts hotline offering $5,000 reward...
      FL Dem Party wants ballots allowed -- before registration verified...
      Judge reopens voter reg in Virginia...
      PA old voting machines could be problem if outcome in doubt...
      PODESTA: OK for Illegals to Vote With Driver's License...

      Delete
    2. FL Dem Party wants ballots allowed -- before registration verified...

      That's a good one.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I want to vote in Florida too !

      Delete
  21. Obama was and is an outsider in the sense that he has never bought into the idea that the founding principles of this country are superior, and far superior to his beloved Muhammadanism-based debased crapola.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The offensive to seize back Mosul from Islamic State (IS) is going faster than planned, Iraq's Prime Minister says, as the army, Shiite militia and Kurdish forces advanced on multiple fronts to clear villages on the city's outskirts.

    ...

    Major Saifadin Haji Ibrahim said many of the villages on the road to Mosul were homes to religious and ethnic minorities persecuted by the IS group.

    ...

    The International Organisation for Migration said most of those to flee the area since the battle to reclaim the city began this week had left in the last 24 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Careful, Doug. Our resident Canadian gets his panties in a wad if you mention the FACT that America is exceptional.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In a state visit aimed at cozying up to Beijing as he pushes away from Washington, the Philippine President announced his military and economic "separation" from the United States.

    ...

    Relations between China and the Philippines had soured over a territorial dispute in the South China Sea.
    But now Duterte is taking a different tack, pushing that issue to the background as he tries to forge closer ties with China.

    ...

    Chinese President Xi Jingping welcomed Duterte with full military honors at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's hard to figure.

      Our State Department is very confused about all this. Well, they have confused about most things but this sorta came out of nowhere.

      He must feel China is going to be the strong horse.

      For it's part, the Obama Administration is scratching its head and picking its nose.

      A meeting with the Philippine Ambassador and our Ambassador is scheduled soon so we ask 'what the hell ?'

      Delete
  25. President Duterte announced yesterday that he is cutting military and economic ties with the United States and is veering towards China, in a dramatic foreign policy shift that his officials said would open more opportunities for the Philippines.

    ...

    At Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, Xi told Duterte he hoped the latter’s “milestone” visit could help “fully improve” ties, which have suffered from the dispute over territories in the West Philippine Sea and South China Sea.

    ...

    Duterte said that with his “separation” from the US, he has “realigned” himself with China’s “ideological flow” and is considering visiting Russia to formally cement a renewed alliance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Trumpettes scared her away.

      Delete
    2. aka Our Catholic Woman ?

      I'm certain she's gone off to a nunnery by now, having left both her lesbian lover, Miss Feely, and her husband, Mr Redinger, in the lurch.

      Delete
  26. What does that make you, Ash?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Trumpette, that's first sure.


      Funny how Clinton and Trump are so palsy at the Archdiocese tonight. Trumps on her payroll, no?

      Delete
    2. That's what you keep saying. It's been said before. Maybe it's true. You can call me what you want, but make no mistake about it, I am anti HRC all the way. I would and will vote for who ever is running against her.

      Delete
  27. Who told the most self-defecating jokes at the Al Smith Dinner tonight, The Donald or Hillary ?

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. My God, that fat immobile wine drinking Catholic Archbishop sure looked like a self satisfied old asshole.

      I can see now why my Lutheran ancestors revolted.

      Delete
    2. The old disgusting Archbishop WAS a self-defecating joke, the old self shitter.

      Delete
    3. Here's the old asshole right here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_M._Dolan

      Delete
    4. Sexual abuse scandal[edit]

      In 2002, Archbishop Rigali assigned Dolan to investigate Roman Catholic priests accused of sexual misconduct in St. Louis. During the investigation, Dolan spoke with parishes, victims, and the media about the scandals, and invited victims of clerical abuse to come forward.[8] Commenting on his meetings with them, Dolan said, "...[i]t is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the situation, and the suffering that victims feel, because I've spent the last four months being with them, crying with them, having them express their anger to me."[58] Dolan dismissed abusive priests, which earned him the ire of some St. Louis parishioners who remained loyal to their dismissed priests and referred to Dolan's investigation as a "witch hunt".[8]

      In a 2003 letter to Joseph Ratzinger, requesting that the process be expedited for the laicization of priests accused of abuse who he believed were "remorseless and a serious risk to children", Dolan wrote: “As victims organize and become more public, the potential for true scandal is very real.”[59] In May 2012, the New York Times revealed that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, then headed by Dolan, had paid some abusive priests – although already dismissed from their priestly duties – up to $20,000 to leave the priesthood immediately rather than force the church to initiate time-consuming and expensive laicization proceedings against them.[60] The archdiocese noted that the "unassignable priests" were still receiving full salaries and would continue to do so until they were formally laicized;[60] and that the payouts were a "motivation" so that the priests would not contest being defrocked. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests sent a formal protest asking, "In what other occupation, especially one working with families and operating schools and youth programs, is an employee given a cash bonus for raping and sexually assaulting children?"[60] Dolan responded to accusations that he had given "payoffs" to protect accused priests as "false, preposterous, and unjust".[60]

      In 2011, Dolan thanked Bill Donohue for a press release, reproduced on the Archdiocese of New York website, in which Donohue referred to the non-profit support group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests as a "phony victims' group".[61]

      In July 2013, documents made public during bankruptcy proceedings showed that Dolan had sought permission to move $57 million in church funds to protect the assets from victims of clerical abuse. In a letter to the Vatican requesting permission to move the funds, Dolan wrote "By transferring these assets to the trust, I foresee an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability.”[59][62] Dolan had previously denied that he tried to conceal assets from child sex abuse victims claiming compensation calling the accusations "old and discredited" and "malarkey."[63] United States law forbids debtors transferring money in ways that protect some creditors against others.[63] The Vatican approved the request in five weeks.[59]


      wiki

      Delete
    5. AD QUEM IBIMUS

      For his motto, Cardinal Dolan continues to use the Latin phrase, “AD QUEM IBIMUS.” By the use of these words taken from St. John’s Gospel (John 6:68), Cardinal Dolan takes the words of St. Peter as was said to Jesus, “LORD, TO WHOM SHALL WE GO,” for truly the Lord is the way to all and eternal happiness.

      The achievement is completed with the external ornaments which are a gold archiepiscopal processional cross that has two cross-members, that is placed in back of and which extends above and below the shield, and the Pontifical hat, called a “gallero,” with its fifteen tassels, in five rows, on either side of the shield, all in red. These are the heraldic insignia of a prelate of the rank of cardinal by instruction of the Holy See of March 31, 1969.

      http://archny.org/the-coat-of-arms

      Delete
  29. - Alfred E. Smith IV, the chairman of the dinner, seemed to offer a preview of what may await Trump as he tries to return to New York society life should he not win the White House in November.

    ...

    And on Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, who is running Trump's transition effort: "Governor Christie was supposed to be here but he got stuck in bridge traffic."

    Finally, he turned the podium over to Trump. No matter how the coin toss ended, our next speaker was going to say it was rigged," Smith said, to laughter.

    "Donald, the microphone is yours and it's working."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ‘I will be greatest jobs president God ever created’ - video

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-us-president-republicans-video

      Delete
  30. As an outsider the most shocking part of the debate was Trump's refusal to say categorically that he would accept the election result. It is a sign of how disenchanted many voters are here that in this room that was considered a fair point.

    The debate ended less than 12 hours after early voting was to begin in North Carolina, a state that should be a walkover for the Republican Party, and one that Trump must take if he is to win the White House. A poll just before the debate found that Clinton led Trump by 2 per cent.

    When Wallace finally ended the debate most here in this room rose to leave without another word.

    ReplyDelete
  31. At the Al Smith Dinner, when The Donald was speaking, there were two or three times a big loud to-do of rude noise and language coming from somewhere out in the audience. This dinner I think had an audience section for the plebs from which they could view the white tied Patricians and their Ladies. And of course the Archbishop Self-Shitter too, dressed to be viewed, in his fancy robes, size 5X, this fellow, with his self satisfied fat face, a representative of The Man For Others, who skillfully hid the assets of The Church of Christ The King from the Lawyers who wanted it for fees mostly and to reimburse the raped and molested Youth of the Church for their mistreatment at the hands of its Priests.

    The Donald took it all in stride, peering out that way, and said he couldn't figure out if they were yelling and screaming against him, or Hillary.

    My first thought was the The Hag's Major Black Boot, one Bobby Creamer by name, had infiltrated some of his street fighters into the proceedings to make trouble, and hopefully blame it on Trump, and his folks.

    On further reflection, this didn't seem to quite fit somehow, so I can't say what the hell it was all about, but it was so loud and angry that I thought they were about to rush The Poor Donald.

    The to-do eventually died down, due I suppose to security being enforced.

    It was quite odd, and unexplained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Donald did tell one good ripper on Hillary, that went something like this....we were the two of us going to a dinner separately, and she bumped into me, and said:

      "Pardon me"

      The audience was quiet for a very brief time, then got the reference, and even The Hag was laughing her ass off.

      I think The Donald's writers got the better of Hillary's writers at this Al Smith Dinner.

      Delete
    2. And of course there was the Spooky Clown named "J-Q" who wandered about, and frightened some of the Ladies, this being the month of Halloween, and Spooky Clowns being all the rage these days.

      Delete
    3. The aim of the Al Smith Dinner is to calm emotions, get a laugh, and prevent the Political Parties from beginning to shoot one another.

      The Patricians don't get it though. It's the plebs they should really fear, not one another, as they are all the same, mostly, and one fine day the plebs may finally say 'fuck it' and begin to shoot the Patricians.

      I hope it doesn't come to that though as I have read enough to know that such action rarely brings good fortune to anyone.

      Delete
    4. As Gautama said:

      "Such behavior does not conduce to Liberation"

      Delete
    5. I have the answer for Krauthammer....write in Quirk -


      Charles Krauthammer: Who I’m voting for, and why

      Charles Krauthammer
      NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Thursday, October 20, 2016, 8:00 PM

      Both unfit (MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)

      The case against Hillary Clinton could have been written before the recent WikiLeaks and FBI disclosures. But these documents do provide hard textual backup.

      The most sensational disclosure was the proposed deal between the State Department and the FBI in which the FBI would declassify a Hillary Clinton email and State would give the FBI more slots in overseas stations. What made it sensational was the rare appearance in an official account of the phrase “quid pro quo,” which is the currently agreed-upon dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable corruption.

      This is nonetheless an odd choice for most egregious offense. First, it occurred several layers removed from the campaign and from Clinton. It involved a career State Department official (he occupied the same position under Condoleezza Rice) covering not just for Clinton but for his own department.

      Second, it’s not clear which side originally offered the bargain. Third, nothing tangible was supposed to exchange hands. There was no proposed personal enrichment — a Rolex in return for your soul — which tends to be our standard for punishable misconduct.

      And finally, it never actually happened. The FBI turned down the declassification request.

      In sum, a warm gun but nonsmoking. Indeed, if the phrase “quid pro quo” hadn’t appeared, it would have received little attention. Moreover, it obscures the real scandal — the bottomless cynicism of the campaign and of the candidate.

      Among dozens of examples, the Qatari gambit. Qatar, one of the worst actors in the Middle East (having financially supported the Islamic State, for example), offered $1 million as a “birthday” gift to Bill Clinton in return for five minutes of his time. Who offers — who takes — $200,000 a minute? We don’t know the “quid” here, but it’s got to be big.

      Delete
    6. In the final debate, Clinton ran and hid when asked about pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation. And for good reason. The emails reveal how foundation donors were first in line for favors and contracts.

      A governance review by an outside law firm reported that some donors “may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.” You need an outside law firm to tell you that? If your Sultanic heart bleeds for Haiti, why not give to Haiti directly? Because if you give through the Clintons, you have a claim on future favors.

      The soullessness of this campaign — all ambition and entitlement — emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job? Asked one of her aides, Joel Benenson: “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?”

      It’s that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the embarrassing about-face on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds swung decisively against free trade.

      So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank. As she told a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was “a need to do something because, for political reasons . . . you can’t sit idly by and do nothing.”

      Giving the appearance that something had to be done. That’s not why Elizabeth Warren supported Dodd-Frank. Which is the difference between a conviction politician like Warren and a calculating machine like Clinton.

      Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn’t seen it so clearly laid out. Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.

      I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

      A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.


      The only question is whose name I’m going to write in. With Albert Schweitzer doubly unavailable (noncitizen, dead), I’m down to Paul Ryan or Ben Sasse. Two weeks to decide.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/charles-krauthammer-voting-article-1.2838947

      Delete
    7. Which is to say Krauthammer has decided to 'vote' for Hillary.

      Delete
    8. Which is to say he figured out a way to vote for a Supreme Court with no respect for the Constitution whatsoever.

      Nice move, Gimp!

      Delete
  32. Hillary Clinton Mocks Trump At Alfred Smith Dinner: He Sees Statue Of Liberty As a "4"

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Andrea Mitchell Falsely Claims Donna Brazile Leak Story Has Been ‘Completely Knocked Down’ [VIDEO]

    Scroll down to the bottom of the page to watch these crazy, evil, lying bitches spew their deceitful propaganda.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/andrea-mitchell-falsely-claims-donna-brazile-leak-story-has-been-completely-knocked-down-video/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Skip to 4 minutes to see our modern crybaby culture.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKYb-FHYM-A

    ReplyDelete
  35. According to my friend, this nation’s soldiers would “patrol” by finding an open field not far outside the wire, sit for hours, then go back to the FOB. They took great pains to avoid danger and when engaged immediately broke contact. He described an experience at the Tactical Operations Center, where cameras caught a Taliban cell emplacing a rocket at a frequently-used launch site. As they watched the Taliban preparing to fire on the FOB, my friend asked, “Why don’t you fire on them?”

    One of the foreign military officers answered, “We can’t. They haven’t fired on us yet.”

    The Taliban launched the rocket. Without a word, everyone in the TOC jumped up and sprinted for bunkers. They knew from experience that rockets from that site would impact in about fifteen seconds. My friend chased them to cover. A few seconds later the rocket exploded. Everyone ran back to the TOC. The camera showed the Taliban hurriedly leaving the area.

    Frustrated, my friend asked, “Why the hell don’t you shoot at them now?”

    The answer was, “We can’t shoot. Now they’re unarmed.”

    https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/07/09/working-with-the-french-army/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Dumbasses, Trump’s “Bad Language” Isn’t the F**king Issue

      https://chrishernandezauthor.com/2016/10/13/no-dumbasses-the-fking-issue-isnt-trumps-bad-language/

      Delete
    2. I enjoyed that as my first read this morning Doug. Thanks.

      "But don’t act like I’m offended by Trump’s “bad language”. Because that’s a fucking lie, and you know it. The truth is, I hate sexual predators. Like the one you’re voting for."

      Delete
  36. I was disappointed that they didn’t throw drinks in each other’s face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump seemed to be fawning over Clinton at the end trying to get a handshake and all.

      I thought the look on Guiliani's face (what?) when Clinton made the joke about The Statue of Liberty being a 4, revealing.

      Delete
  37. The Donald and Melania were unarmed. He doesn't drink, and she copies him.

    The best chance would have been for Archbishop Self Shitter, who was guzzling like a drunken ape, to finally lose his cool over Hillary's anti-Catholic talk, and cold cock her with his wine bottle.

    ReplyDelete