Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
August 10, 2016
The Democratic Party’s convention was a normal political party’s convention. The party nominated Hillary Clinton, a longtime party member with deep experience in government. Clinton was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, the runner-up in the primary. Barack Obama, the sitting president, spoke in favor of Clinton. Various Democratic luminaries gave speeches endorsing Clinton by name. The assembled speakers criticized the other party’s nominee, arguing that he would be a bad president and should be defeated at the polls.
That isn’t to say that Democrats didn’t show divisions or expose fault lines. They did. Political parties are chaotic things. The Democratic Party’s primary was unusually bitter, and listening to the loud "boos" of Sanders’s most committed supporters, there’s real reason to wonder whether Democrats will fracture in coming years. But for now, the Democrats nominated a normal candidate, held a normal convention, and remain a normal political party.
Republicans held an abnormal convention and nominated an abnormal candidate
The Republican Party’s convention was not a normal political party’s convention. The party nominated Donald Trump, a new member with literally no experience in government. Ted Cruz, the runner-up in the primary, gave a primetime speech in which he refused to endorse Trump, and instead told Americans to "vote your conscience."
The Republican Party’s two living presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, declined to endorse Trump or attend the convention. The party’s previous two presidential nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain, declined to endorse Trump or attend the convention. The assembled speakers — including Chris Christie, a prospective attorney general — argued that the other party’s nominee was a criminal who should be thrown in jail.
(more)
This election isn’t just Democrat vs. Republican. It’s normal vs. abnormal. Ezra Klein
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/28/12281222/trump-clinton-conventionsThe Democratic Party’s convention was a normal political party’s convention. The party nominated Hillary Clinton, a longtime party member with deep experience in government. Clinton was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, the runner-up in the primary. Barack Obama, the sitting president, spoke in favor of Clinton. Various Democratic luminaries gave speeches endorsing Clinton by name. The assembled speakers criticized the other party’s nominee, arguing that he would be a bad president and should be defeated at the polls.
That isn’t to say that Democrats didn’t show divisions or expose fault lines. They did. Political parties are chaotic things. The Democratic Party’s primary was unusually bitter, and listening to the loud "boos" of Sanders’s most committed supporters, there’s real reason to wonder whether Democrats will fracture in coming years. But for now, the Democrats nominated a normal candidate, held a normal convention, and remain a normal political party.
Republicans held an abnormal convention and nominated an abnormal candidate
The Republican Party’s convention was not a normal political party’s convention. The party nominated Donald Trump, a new member with literally no experience in government. Ted Cruz, the runner-up in the primary, gave a primetime speech in which he refused to endorse Trump, and instead told Americans to "vote your conscience."
The Republican Party’s two living presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, declined to endorse Trump or attend the convention. The party’s previous two presidential nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain, declined to endorse Trump or attend the convention. The assembled speakers — including Chris Christie, a prospective attorney general — argued that the other party’s nominee was a criminal who should be thrown in jail.
(more)
August 10, 2016
The antigovernment movement has experienced a resurgence, growing quickly since 2008, when President Obama was elected to office. Factors fueling the antigovernment movement in recent years include changing demographics driven by immigration, the struggling economy and the election of the first African-American president. In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified 998 anti-government groups that were active the prior year. Of these groups, 276 were militias and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups.
Generally, antigovernment groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Antigovernment groups do not necessarily advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, though some have. Many warn of impending government violence or the need to prepare for a coming revolution. Many antigovernment groups are not racist.
A particularly prominent conspiracy in the antigovernment movement is that the United Nations, which is usually seen as spearheading the “New World Order,” is imposing a global plan, called Agenda 21, to take away citizens’ property rights. There is a UN program with that name to develop sustainable communities across the globe. Agenda 21 was agreed to by political leaders from dozens of countries, including the first President Bush. But in typical fashion, these antigovernment activists have twisted it into a global conspiracy.
Other notable conspiracies found in the antigovernment movement include the idea that the government is secretly planning to round up citizens and place them in concentration camps run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Another conspiracy alleges that there are plans to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a single country. Fears of impending gun control or weapons confiscations, either by the government or international agencies, also run rampant in antigovernment circles. As a result, many antigovernment activists believe that being well armed is a must. The militia movement engages in paramilitary training aimed at protecting citizens from this feared impending government crackdown.
(more)
These idiots have already lost touch with reality. Trump's reckless statements can be assumed to have already affected some of these self pitying psychopaths - This should be presumed rather waiting for them to try something. I hope the FBI is increasing assets devoted to monitoring of these groups. We've already lost too many good people to mentally ill twits.
these R the Nutjobs who will act on Trumps call to kill - anti-government self pitying psychopaths
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antigovernmentThe antigovernment movement has experienced a resurgence, growing quickly since 2008, when President Obama was elected to office. Factors fueling the antigovernment movement in recent years include changing demographics driven by immigration, the struggling economy and the election of the first African-American president. In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified 998 anti-government groups that were active the prior year. Of these groups, 276 were militias and the remainder includes “common-law” courts, publishers, ministries and citizens’ groups.
Generally, antigovernment groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Antigovernment groups do not necessarily advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, though some have. Many warn of impending government violence or the need to prepare for a coming revolution. Many antigovernment groups are not racist.
A particularly prominent conspiracy in the antigovernment movement is that the United Nations, which is usually seen as spearheading the “New World Order,” is imposing a global plan, called Agenda 21, to take away citizens’ property rights. There is a UN program with that name to develop sustainable communities across the globe. Agenda 21 was agreed to by political leaders from dozens of countries, including the first President Bush. But in typical fashion, these antigovernment activists have twisted it into a global conspiracy.
Other notable conspiracies found in the antigovernment movement include the idea that the government is secretly planning to round up citizens and place them in concentration camps run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Another conspiracy alleges that there are plans to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a single country. Fears of impending gun control or weapons confiscations, either by the government or international agencies, also run rampant in antigovernment circles. As a result, many antigovernment activists believe that being well armed is a must. The militia movement engages in paramilitary training aimed at protecting citizens from this feared impending government crackdown.
(more)
These idiots have already lost touch with reality. Trump's reckless statements can be assumed to have already affected some of these self pitying psychopaths - This should be presumed rather waiting for them to try something. I hope the FBI is increasing assets devoted to monitoring of these groups. We've already lost too many good people to mentally ill twits.
August 10, 2016
If I had a dime for every time big media asked Hillary why “voters don’t trust her” — and another dime for every time they tell us how dishonest people think she is — I’d be a wealthy man.
Since the early nineties, the corporate media have used a seemingly innocuous interrogatory to create a self-fulfilling loop. By repeatedly asking whether Hillary has a trust and honesty problem, they have created the very issue that they pretend to objectively report on.
Put simply: if you ask whether someone is dishonest and untrustworthy a million times, regardless of the underlying facts, you’ll invariably create a false impression about that person.
That is precisely what Hillary has been subjected to for decades and it is a loathsome and duplicitous game on the part of the “journalists” who play it — and who do so with brutal efficiency.
(more)
Behind The Media’s Deceitful (and Loathsome) ‘Is Hillary Honest’ Game - Daou, BNR
http://bluenationreview.com/behind-the-medias-deceitful-is-hillary-honest-game/If I had a dime for every time big media asked Hillary why “voters don’t trust her” — and another dime for every time they tell us how dishonest people think she is — I’d be a wealthy man.
Since the early nineties, the corporate media have used a seemingly innocuous interrogatory to create a self-fulfilling loop. By repeatedly asking whether Hillary has a trust and honesty problem, they have created the very issue that they pretend to objectively report on.
Put simply: if you ask whether someone is dishonest and untrustworthy a million times, regardless of the underlying facts, you’ll invariably create a false impression about that person.
That is precisely what Hillary has been subjected to for decades and it is a loathsome and duplicitous game on the part of the “journalists” who play it — and who do so with brutal efficiency.
(more)
August 9, 2016
.. could that be construed as aiding and abetting?
Shocked Media Figures Condemn Trump’s “Second Amendment People” Remark
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said at a rally that if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton “gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and ally, previously called for Clinton to be “brought to justice - arrested, tried, and executed for murder.” Another Trump adviser, Al Baldasaro, has said that Clinton should be "shot for treason"; the Secret Service subsequently investigated him.
Numerous media figures reacted with shock, condemning Trump's remarks and questioning whether the Secret Service would investigate him. Media figures also took issue with the Trump campaign’s “spin” that Trump was just talking about Second Amendment people “voting.”
Here is a sample of the media reaction from across the political spectrum:
(more)
Should the media be broadcasting Trumps utterances, since he's sunk to inciting violent crime?
.. could that be construed as aiding and abetting?
Shocked Media Figures Condemn Trump’s “Second Amendment People” Remark
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said at a rally that if Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton “gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and ally, previously called for Clinton to be “brought to justice - arrested, tried, and executed for murder.” Another Trump adviser, Al Baldasaro, has said that Clinton should be "shot for treason"; the Secret Service subsequently investigated him.
Numerous media figures reacted with shock, condemning Trump's remarks and questioning whether the Secret Service would investigate him. Media figures also took issue with the Trump campaign’s “spin” that Trump was just talking about Second Amendment people “voting.”
Here is a sample of the media reaction from across the political spectrum:
(more)
August 9, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s polling surge is showing no signs of fading. She leads Donald Trump, on average, by about 7 percentage points in national polls, and is an 83-percent favorite to win on Nov. 8, according to our polls-only model. Our polls-plus model — which accounts for the “fundamentals,” as well as the tendency for a candidate’s numbers to temporarily rise after his or her convention — gives her a 76 percent chance. Those are her largest advantages since we launched our election forecasts back in June. Here’s polls-only:
?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1
Clinton’s chances were buoyed by strong numbers in both national and state polling released this weekend:
◾ A new ABC News/Washington Post national poll published on Sunday showed Clinton up 8 percentage points among registered voters. Clinton’s lead jumped 4 points compared to the previous ABC News/Washington survey, conducted before the conventions.
◾ A Morning Consult poll, also published Sunday, also found Clinton up 8 points among registered voters. Clinton was up 5 percentage points in the same poll last weekend, conducted after both conventions. That is, Clinton’s post-convention surge has continued in Morning Consult’s polling.
◾ Two national tracking polls which have generally shown good numbers for Trump also found Clinton building or holding onto her post-convention bounce. Clinton led by 1 percentage point in the latest USC Dornsife/LA Times survey, and by 6 points in the CVOTER International poll — both matching her largest leads from those pollsters.
(more)
Clinton’s Post-Convention Bump Is Showing No Signs Of Fading - 538
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-post-convention-bump-is-holding-steady/Hillary Clinton’s polling surge is showing no signs of fading. She leads Donald Trump, on average, by about 7 percentage points in national polls, and is an 83-percent favorite to win on Nov. 8, according to our polls-only model. Our polls-plus model — which accounts for the “fundamentals,” as well as the tendency for a candidate’s numbers to temporarily rise after his or her convention — gives her a 76 percent chance. Those are her largest advantages since we launched our election forecasts back in June. Here’s polls-only:
?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1
Clinton’s chances were buoyed by strong numbers in both national and state polling released this weekend:
◾ A new ABC News/Washington Post national poll published on Sunday showed Clinton up 8 percentage points among registered voters. Clinton’s lead jumped 4 points compared to the previous ABC News/Washington survey, conducted before the conventions.
◾ A Morning Consult poll, also published Sunday, also found Clinton up 8 points among registered voters. Clinton was up 5 percentage points in the same poll last weekend, conducted after both conventions. That is, Clinton’s post-convention surge has continued in Morning Consult’s polling.
◾ Two national tracking polls which have generally shown good numbers for Trump also found Clinton building or holding onto her post-convention bounce. Clinton led by 1 percentage point in the latest USC Dornsife/LA Times survey, and by 6 points in the CVOTER International poll — both matching her largest leads from those pollsters.
(more)
August 9, 2016
Rem you either have gotten carried away with the popular M$M sport, piling on with baseless character assassinations of Clinton, or you are so fucking stupid you didn't listen to ALL the testimony given by Comey in his Congressional hearing. You either really don't know what Rep Matt Cartwright's asked Comey about Classified Headers nor Comey's answers to those questions or you are brazenly lying about what transpired between Rep Cartwright and Dir Comey.
Comy admitted that NONE of the Emails which Comey said had Classified info in them, NOT ONE had the Classification Header/subject line - as is required by the governing reg/manual......
(emphases my own)
[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No. [...]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?
JAMES COMEY: Correct.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.
[font size="3"] I guess this is fanciful thinking, but it would be nice if someone in the Clinton camp would inform the GOP toadies of M$M about this - preferably Hillary.[/font]
Rieder of USA Today lies about Hillary's emails - what the hell, everybody else is doing it!
Rem Rieder, in USA Today criticizes Clinton for not being transparent. Really getting into the spirit of his Hillary hit piece, poor Rem can't help himself and utters a demonstrable LIE, saying that Clinton lied when she said she sent or received nothing that was marked Classified...
Can Clinton become transparent?
"she said no email marked classified at the time was sent over the server. It was."
Rem you either have gotten carried away with the popular M$M sport, piling on with baseless character assassinations of Clinton, or you are so fucking stupid you didn't listen to ALL the testimony given by Comey in his Congressional hearing. You either really don't know what Rep Matt Cartwright's asked Comey about Classified Headers nor Comey's answers to those questions or you are brazenly lying about what transpired between Rep Cartwright and Dir Comey.
Comy admitted that NONE of the Emails which Comey said had Classified info in them, NOT ONE had the Classification Header/subject line - as is required by the governing reg/manual......
(emphases my own)
[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No. [...]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?
JAMES COMEY: Correct.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.
[font size="3"] I guess this is fanciful thinking, but it would be nice if someone in the Clinton camp would inform the GOP toadies of M$M about this - preferably Hillary.[/font]
August 6, 2016
Assange doesn't care if Russia altered some or inserted phony emails in hacked DNC emails
Assange, Avowed Foe of Clinton, Timed Email Release for Democratic Convention
August 6, 2016
On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.
(more)
Michael MORELL: I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton
[font size="+1"]"I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security"[/font]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.
(more)
August 4, 2016
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask you about that, about the — what you consider a successful outcome here, because we know you have made clear your strong feelings about Hillary Clinton.
You wrote back in February — and I’m quoting now — “She’s a war hawk who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn’t be let near a gun shop, much less an army. She certainly shouldn’t become president.”
So, I think, why shouldn’t the American people assume there’s a political motive here?
Assange offered a circumlocuted answer which did NOT include a denial of any political motivation to his actions.
Assange has anointed himself Cyber-Pope of the world which allows him to pass moral judgment on people and nations and exact penalties by releasing cyber-bombs - hacked emails - as punishment for their sins. In this case the cyber-bomb is meant to weaken, perhaps seriously, the campaign of a candidate in an American election he deems to be not fit to be president of the United States. IT's not clear when God spoke to Assange and gave him this assignment to save and discipline the World. Of course, such releases of hacked emails would give voters a glimpse of inner workings of a campaign but there is no guarantee it would be a representative glimpse. In fact, it can almost be guaranteed to NOT be the full picture of whatever issue the revealed information pertained to. This is the kind of thing the GOP has been doing for decades to menace the Clintons and confuse the American public.
What Assange is actually, is an enabler of Russia. Russia wouldn't publish these hacked emails themselves as it would expose them to harsh criticism and could have repercussions. But Assange gives Russia a means of affecting (sabotaging) our election of our next president - without exposing itself to criticism and possible consequences. Russia, most certainly is politically motivated. Russia would rather have the clown Trump to run rings around rather than to face the very intelligent and tough adversary Clinton would be. Assange, by claiming he has to publish materials brought to Wikileaks is blithely refusing to take any responsibility for enabling Russia in their politically motivated acts. If Trump were to become President, the repercussions could be monstrous and tragic. Even Republican politicians have expressed real concern about Trump's erratic pronouncements and behavior.
Frankly, I don't buy Assange's assertion that he is without political motivation - which he actually, in his circumlocuted answer, did NOT deny. With supercilious, willful obtuseness he said sabotaging Hillary's campaign does not constitute an endorsement of Trump. Well, thank you for that - your holiness... but since he is the only other candidate - that is, in effect, exactly what it is.
I don't know about how other people react to this, but I am more than moderately infuriated that somebody who is not a U.S. citizen thinks it's okay for him to throw out cyber-bombs to affect the U.S. Presidential election. From 1978 to 1995 Ted Kaczynski mailed several bombs to scientists in his campaign against "evil" technological progress. He was dubbed the Unibomber. In his mind, he had reasons for his bombing campaign and he wrote a lengthy manifesto detailing his rationale for opposition to industrialization and modern technology. He ultimately killed a total of three people and injured 23 others.
Assange is of the same ilk as Kaczynski, confident he is better equipped than anyone else to make moral judgments of society and thus entitled to exact punishments on those he has devined are guilty of crimes against humanity. Anyone who thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner is obviously a narcissist indulging in delusions of grandeur. "One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. ...Grandiose fantasies ... are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment..."2 and why he can confer upon himself special powers and a unique position of authority over other mere mortals, meting out discipline as he deems appropriate and necessary.
1. __ [font size="3"]FBI Suspects Russia Hacked DNC; U.S. Officials Say It Was to Elect Donald Trump
(emphasis my own)
Did the Russian government hack the DNC to bring down Hillary Clinton? That’s the view that’s quickly emerging inside American intelligence and law enforcement agencies.[/font]
The FBI suspects that Russian government hackers breached the networks of the Democratic National Committee and stole emails that were posted to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks on Friday. It’s an operation that several U.S. officials now suspect was a deliberate attempt to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, according to five individuals familiar with the investigation of the breach.
The theory that Moscow orchestrated the leaks to help Trump—who has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and practically called for the end of NATO—is fast gaining currency within the Obama administration because of the timing of the leaks and Trump’s own connections to the Russian government, the sources said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing and developing quickly.
~~
~~
“The release of emails just as the Democratic National Convention is getting underway this week has the hallmarks of a Russian active measures campaign,” David Shedd, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told The Daily Beast. Shedd said that additional leaks were likely, echoing an opinion expressed by U.S. officials and experts who said that the release of emails on Friday may just be an opening salvo.
(more)
2. __ http://samvak.tripod.com/journal91.html
Don't worry Donald, Julian Assange self-appointed cyber-Pope & Putin R coming to save your candidacy
Last night on PBS Newshour, Judy Woodruff interviewed Julian Assange. She tried to get him to admit he got the hacked DNC and Clinton campaign emails from Russia. He just said the emails were from the DNC and the Clinton campaign. He would not admit that WikiLeaks got these materials from Russia. American intelligence experts think the emails were hacked by Russia1. He did, however, take the opportunity to favor viewers with his judgment that Hillary Clinton was unfit to serve as President of the United States.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me ask you about that, about the — what you consider a successful outcome here, because we know you have made clear your strong feelings about Hillary Clinton.
You wrote back in February — and I’m quoting now — “She’s a war hawk who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn’t be let near a gun shop, much less an army. She certainly shouldn’t become president.”
So, I think, why shouldn’t the American people assume there’s a political motive here?
Assange offered a circumlocuted answer which did NOT include a denial of any political motivation to his actions.
Assange has anointed himself Cyber-Pope of the world which allows him to pass moral judgment on people and nations and exact penalties by releasing cyber-bombs - hacked emails - as punishment for their sins. In this case the cyber-bomb is meant to weaken, perhaps seriously, the campaign of a candidate in an American election he deems to be not fit to be president of the United States. IT's not clear when God spoke to Assange and gave him this assignment to save and discipline the World. Of course, such releases of hacked emails would give voters a glimpse of inner workings of a campaign but there is no guarantee it would be a representative glimpse. In fact, it can almost be guaranteed to NOT be the full picture of whatever issue the revealed information pertained to. This is the kind of thing the GOP has been doing for decades to menace the Clintons and confuse the American public.
What Assange is actually, is an enabler of Russia. Russia wouldn't publish these hacked emails themselves as it would expose them to harsh criticism and could have repercussions. But Assange gives Russia a means of affecting (sabotaging) our election of our next president - without exposing itself to criticism and possible consequences. Russia, most certainly is politically motivated. Russia would rather have the clown Trump to run rings around rather than to face the very intelligent and tough adversary Clinton would be. Assange, by claiming he has to publish materials brought to Wikileaks is blithely refusing to take any responsibility for enabling Russia in their politically motivated acts. If Trump were to become President, the repercussions could be monstrous and tragic. Even Republican politicians have expressed real concern about Trump's erratic pronouncements and behavior.
Frankly, I don't buy Assange's assertion that he is without political motivation - which he actually, in his circumlocuted answer, did NOT deny. With supercilious, willful obtuseness he said sabotaging Hillary's campaign does not constitute an endorsement of Trump. Well, thank you for that - your holiness... but since he is the only other candidate - that is, in effect, exactly what it is.
I don't know about how other people react to this, but I am more than moderately infuriated that somebody who is not a U.S. citizen thinks it's okay for him to throw out cyber-bombs to affect the U.S. Presidential election. From 1978 to 1995 Ted Kaczynski mailed several bombs to scientists in his campaign against "evil" technological progress. He was dubbed the Unibomber. In his mind, he had reasons for his bombing campaign and he wrote a lengthy manifesto detailing his rationale for opposition to industrialization and modern technology. He ultimately killed a total of three people and injured 23 others.
Assange is of the same ilk as Kaczynski, confident he is better equipped than anyone else to make moral judgments of society and thus entitled to exact punishments on those he has devined are guilty of crimes against humanity. Anyone who thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner is obviously a narcissist indulging in delusions of grandeur. "One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. ...Grandiose fantasies ... are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment..."2 and why he can confer upon himself special powers and a unique position of authority over other mere mortals, meting out discipline as he deems appropriate and necessary.
1. __ [font size="3"]FBI Suspects Russia Hacked DNC; U.S. Officials Say It Was to Elect Donald Trump
(emphasis my own)
Did the Russian government hack the DNC to bring down Hillary Clinton? That’s the view that’s quickly emerging inside American intelligence and law enforcement agencies.[/font]
The FBI suspects that Russian government hackers breached the networks of the Democratic National Committee and stole emails that were posted to the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks on Friday. It’s an operation that several U.S. officials now suspect was a deliberate attempt to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump, according to five individuals familiar with the investigation of the breach.
The theory that Moscow orchestrated the leaks to help Trump—who has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and practically called for the end of NATO—is fast gaining currency within the Obama administration because of the timing of the leaks and Trump’s own connections to the Russian government, the sources said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing and developing quickly.
~~
~~
“The release of emails just as the Democratic National Convention is getting underway this week has the hallmarks of a Russian active measures campaign,” David Shedd, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told The Daily Beast. Shedd said that additional leaks were likely, echoing an opinion expressed by U.S. officials and experts who said that the release of emails on Friday may just be an opening salvo.
(more)
2. __ http://samvak.tripod.com/journal91.html
One of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism (the Narcissistic Personality Disorder) is grandiosity. Grandiose fantasies (megalomaniac delusions of grandeur) permeate every aspect of the narcissist's personality. [font size="+1"]They are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment[/font] which is typically incommensurate with his real accomplishments. The Grandiosity Gap is the abyss between the narcissist's self-image (as reified by his False Self) and reality.
August 3, 2016
Meg Whitman, a Hewlett Packard executive and Republican fund-raiser, said Tuesday that she would support Hillary Clinton for president and give a “substantial” contribution to her campaign in order to stop Donald J. Trump, whom she berated as a threat to American democracy.
“I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her,” Ms. Whitman said in a telephone interview.
She revealed that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had reached out to her in a phone call about a month ago, one of the first indications that Mrs. Clinton is aggressively courting Republican leaders. While acknowledging she diverged from Mrs. Clinton on many policy issues, Ms. Whitman said it was time for Republicans “to put country first before party.”
Using remarkably blunt language, she argued that the election of Mr. Trump, whom she called “a dishonest demagogue,” could lead the country “on a very dangerous journey.” She noted that democracies had seldom lasted longer than a few hundred years and warned that those who say that “it can’t happen here” are being naïve.
(more)
Meg Whitman, Calling Donald Trump a ‘Demagogue,’ Will Support Hillary Clinton for President
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/meg-whitman-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0Meg Whitman, a Hewlett Packard executive and Republican fund-raiser, said Tuesday that she would support Hillary Clinton for president and give a “substantial” contribution to her campaign in order to stop Donald J. Trump, whom she berated as a threat to American democracy.
“I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her,” Ms. Whitman said in a telephone interview.
She revealed that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had reached out to her in a phone call about a month ago, one of the first indications that Mrs. Clinton is aggressively courting Republican leaders. While acknowledging she diverged from Mrs. Clinton on many policy issues, Ms. Whitman said it was time for Republicans “to put country first before party.”
Using remarkably blunt language, she argued that the election of Mr. Trump, whom she called “a dishonest demagogue,” could lead the country “on a very dangerous journey.” She noted that democracies had seldom lasted longer than a few hundred years and warned that those who say that “it can’t happen here” are being naïve.
(more)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
