Trump

[rowan]

I've been saying this from the start. Since long before the start, in fact . . .

Trump was always destined to be little more than the fall guy to get Clinton elected. While Trump has his loyal followers, the assumption was that the floating voter would never support such a figure and that Clinton would be a relatively safer bet. As Ron Horn on his Surviving Capitalism website argues, Clinton was always the US deep state’s choice and she was always going to win – by hook or by crook.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/ ... oap-opera/

[Digby]

Did ancient Greeks accuse each other of "misogyny" then?

Only when they wanted to win an argument.

I actually read a very interesting book recently about how Greeks argued. To be fair, none of the classical figures of rhetoric discussed involved accusations of sexism/misogyny.

Because they had slaves, you could pretty much do as you want to them, and of course it didn't count as they weren't really human. Which may lead one to conclude that Trump isn't always a million miles from classical Greek thinking.

[rowan]

& the Greeks may also have taught the Chinese how to sculp their terracotta warriors - according to an article on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-37624943

But - just maybe - it could've been the Chinese who inspired the Greek sculptors . . .

[Lizard]

Did ancient Greeks accuse each other of "misogyny" then?

Only when they wanted to win an argument.

They may well have. It's a Greek word (although the modern version currently in vogue in English may well be a variation).

Sexist is not a Latin word. It was invented by an American in the 1960s making it American-English, as explained. So there was no chance the Romans used it.

Both "sex" and the suffix "-ist" have Latin roots. Similarly, the prefix "mis-" and the root "gyn-" are of Greek origin. The word "misogyny" was actually coined in the mid 17th century so is about as Greek as "sexist" is Latin. The ancient Greeks would have used "misogunian."

Not that any of the etymology really matters.

[Sandydragon]

It's all wank, Rowan is right,....it's just a cheap patsy.

I knew it was a set-up as soon as it became apparent who the candidates were going to be. This election, if nothing else, is really showing up how the media is manipulated in the US, and how stupid the public really can be. What is clear is that the public would far rather engage in juvenile egg-throwing at a made-up candidate due to his sexist (I'm not fashionable enough to use Greek words like "misogynist" in place of plain old English ones) views and behavior. Meanwhile the most sexist nation on earth is massacring civilians (including many women and girls) in Yemen with weapons America and Britain sold to them; the Democratic nominee having served as an 'agent' for the former. But do we hear anything about this from the public? Is it just that they don't know, lack the brains to figure it out, or really just don't care?

The new evidence provided by Wikileaks’s Podesta files makes a convincing case that the Clinton team wanted extreme Republicans as the best possible opponents. They wanted not rational discourse but exactly the kind of mean-spirited bigotry that Trump has delivered so well.

The Wikileaks documents are a window into the soul of power. We can see how the Clinton machine played the strategy of triangulation on the level of action and tactic.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/

This also sums it up well: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/ ... oap-opera/

IS there a danger that too much is being read into those leaks? The Democrats wanted an extreme Republican candidate as they considered that their best chance of victory. Not a major revelation in itself and a long way from the suspicion that the Democrats, or some other entity, were able to manipulate the Republicans to ensure that an extreme candidate was selected.

[rowan]

Only when they wanted to win an argument.

They may well have. It's a Greek word (although the modern version currently in vogue in English may well be a variation).

Sexist is not a Latin word. It was invented by an American in the 1960s making it American-English, as explained. So there was no chance the Romans used it.

Both "sex" and the suffix "-ist" have Latin roots. Similarly, the prefix "mis-" and the root "gyn-" are of Greek origin. The word "misogyny" was actually coined in the mid 17th century so is about as Greek as "sexist" is Latin. The ancient Greeks would have used "misogunian."

Not that any of the etymology really matters.

To suggest that by combining a Latin root word with a Latin suffix to create an entirely new word for the modern English language amounts to the invention of a new 'Latin' word in the 20th century is to deny the evolutionary process of language.

Misogyny is simply a variation on misogunian, though it evidently took on a new connotation in the mid-17th century. I don't think we can say that 'sexist' is a variation on sex, however.

But my original point was that the word 'misogyny' has only very recently become fashionable in the English language. Since the mid-1960s 'sexist' has been the standard term though this appears to have fallen out of favor - quite possibily due to both misuse and overuse (American day-time TV being the leading culprit).

[rowan]

It's all wank, Rowan is right,....it's just a cheap patsy.

I knew it was a set-up as soon as it became apparent who the candidates were going to be. This election, if nothing else, is really showing up how the media is manipulated in the US, and how stupid the public really can be. What is clear is that the public would far rather engage in juvenile egg-throwing at a made-up candidate due to his sexist (I'm not fashionable enough to use Greek words like "misogynist" in place of plain old English ones) views and behavior. Meanwhile the most sexist nation on earth is massacring civilians (including many women and girls) in Yemen with weapons America and Britain sold to them; the Democratic nominee having served as an 'agent' for the former. But do we hear anything about this from the public? Is it just that they don't know, lack the brains to figure it out, or really just don't care?

The new evidence provided by Wikileaks’s Podesta files makes a convincing case that the Clinton team wanted extreme Republicans as the best possible opponents. They wanted not rational discourse but exactly the kind of mean-spirited bigotry that Trump has delivered so well.

The Wikileaks documents are a window into the soul of power. We can see how the Clinton machine played the strategy of triangulation on the level of action and tactic.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/

This also sums it up well: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/ ... oap-opera/

IS there a danger that too much is being read into those leaks? The Democrats wanted an extreme Republican candidate as they considered that their best chance of victory. Not a major revelation in itself and a long way from the suspicion that the Democrats, or some other entity, were able to manipulate the Republicans to ensure that an extreme candidate was selected.

Yes, I doubt very much the Democrats have that much power. I think the deep state theory is more on target. Just who that comprises is another matter (though it would be a fair bet to assume the major corporations and military industrial complex are at the core of it), but I suspect they'e been calling the shots for a very long time.

[morepork]

His racist undertones are of more acute concern. He has a nasty history of it, but hey, sexy time sells better I suppose.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37614095

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politic ... hem-liars/

This was an ugly episode and represents a prime example of institutionalised racism in modern times. Stop and Frisk my arse.


Bye bye justice. Imagine this pig-ignorant sweating orange baby appointing a supreme court judge.

[Mellsblue]

.

[Donny osmond]

Someone is doing technology right...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/wa ... tte-launch

[kk67]

I actually read a very interesting book recently about how Greeks argued. To be fair, none of the classical figures of rhetoric discussed involved accusations of sexism/misogyny.

Lizard, how in the world do you have time to dominate the SHMB when you are busy being such a well read, well travelled man?

Good breeding, topped off with many years of practice, my dear Coco.

I always thought it was because you spent so much time in airports.
That and Beachfront Lawyers generally have spare time.

[kk67]

IS there a danger that too much is being read into those leaks? The Democrats wanted an extreme Republican candidate as they considered that their best chance of victory. Not a major revelation in itself and a long way from the suspicion that the Democrats, or some other entity, were able to manipulate the Republicans to ensure that an extreme candidate was selected.

I found that a very odd claim as well. But given some of the machinations we now get to see in political life, as far back as Watergate, I wouldn't entirely rule it out.
The GoP are a bunch of morons though. Oil and firearms lobby to all intents and purposes, aren't they..?.

[Coco]

Lizard, how in the world do you have time to dominate the SHMB when you are busy being such a well read, well travelled man?

Good breeding, topped off with many years of practice, my dear Coco.

I always thought it was because you spent so much time in airports.
That and Beachfront Lawyers generally have spare time.

Dont hate, kk.

[kk67]

Envy.
Took me 2/3 mins to remember what UG calls you, Liz'. I was racking my brain for it.

[rowan]

Here's what the Trump charade is designed to distract you from:

The fact is, the US is using foreign-born jihadists to topple another sovereign government, the same as it used neo Nazis in Ukraine to topple the government, the same as it used US troops to topple the sovereign government in Iraq, and the same as it used NATO forces to topple the sovereign government in Libya. Get the picture? The methods might change, but the policy is always the same. And the reason the policy is always the same is because Washington likes to pick its own leaders, leaders who invariably serve the interests of its wealthy and powerful constituents, particularly Big Oil and Israel. That’s how the system works. Everyone knows this already. Washington has toppled or attempted to topple more than 50 governments since the end of WW2. The US is a regime change franchise, Coups-R-Us.

Hillary Clinton is a charter member of the regime change oligarchy. She is a avid Koolaid drinker and an devoted believer in American “exceptionalism”, which is the belief that ‘If the United States does something, it must be good.’

Hillary also believes that the best way to resolve the conflict in Syria is by starting a war with Russia. Here’s what she said on Sunday in her debate with Donald Trump:

Clinton: “The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air…I, when I was secretary of state, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones.”

Repeat: “I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones.”

This is a very important point. Hillary has supported no-fly zones from Day 1 despite the fact that–by her own admission– the policy would result in massive civilian casualties. And civilian casualties are not the only danger posed by no-fly zones. Consider the warning by America’s top soldier, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford. In response to a question from Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) on the potential dangers of trying to “control Syrian airspace,” Dunford answered ominously, “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”

This is the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell: Confront the Russians in Syria and start WW3. If there’s another way to interpret Dunford’s answer, then, please, tell me what it is?

Hillary also added that, “we have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground.”

This means that the Obama-CIA policy of supporting militant jihadists on the ground to topple an elected government will continue just as it has for the last five years. Is that what Hillary supporters want; more intervention, more escalation, more Iraqs, more Syrias?

She also said this: “I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.”

Readers should pause for a minute and really try to savor the convoluted absurdity of Clinton’s comments. As we pointed out in our analogy, Putin and Assad are trying to reestablish the central governments control over the country to establish security the same as if Obama found it necessary to fight armed rebels in lower Manhattan. Governments have the right to govern their country. This shouldn’t be hard to understand. What Hillary is proposing is that the Syrian and Russians (who were invited by Assad) be prosecuted for fulfilling the sworn duty of every elected leader while –at the same time– the countries (like the US) that have (by their own admission) armed, trained and financed foreign invaders that have torn the country to shreds and killed more than 400,000 civilians, be let off Scott-free.

It is a great tribute to our propagandist western media, that someone like Hillary can make a thoroughly asinine statement like this and not be laughed off the face of the earth. By Hillary’s logic, Obama could be prosecuted for war crimes if civilians were killed while he attempted to liberate lower Manhattan. The whole idea is ridiculous.

Here’s another Hillary gem from the debate:

“I do think the use of special forces, which we’re using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening.”

“Positive effects”?

What positive effects? 400,000 people are dead, 7 million more are ether internally displaced or refugees, and the country has been reduced to a Fulluja-like rubble. There are no “positive effects” from Hillary’s war. It’s been a complete and utter catastrophe. The only success she can claim, is the fact that the sleazebag Democratic leadership and their thoroughly-corrupt media buddies have been more successful in hiding the details of their depredations from the American people. Otherwise its been a dead-loss.

Here’s more Hillary:

I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi, because I think our targeting of Al Qaida leaders —”

Baghdadi, Schmaghdadi; who gives a rip? When has the CIA’s immoral assassination program ever helped to reduce the fighting, ever diminished the swelling ranks of terrorist organizations, or ever made the American people safer?

Never, that’s when. The whole thing is a fu**ing joke. Hillary just wants another trophy for her future presidential library, a scalp she can hang next to Gadhafi’s. The woman is sick!

Here’s one last quote from the debate::

“I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there’s a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq.”

Obama is arming the Kurds already, but the Kurds have no interest in seizing Raqqa because it is not part of their traditional homeland and because it doesn’t help them achieve the contiguous landmass they seek for their own state. Besides, arming the Kurds just pisses off Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan who provides a critical airstrip at Incirlik from which the US carries out most of its airstrikes on enemy targets in Syria. In other words, Clinton doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about.

While there’s no time to get into Hillary’s role in starting the war in Syria, there is a very thorny situation that developed last week that’s worth considering for those people who still plan to cast their vote for Clinton in the November election.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/12/ ... l-hillary/

[canta_brian]

Anyone else tempted to post #240 in random funny images?

[rowan]

"If Johnson had been running all by himself, he would not have been acceptable to anyone. The only thing that made him acceptable to the world was that the shrewd capitalists, the shrewd imperialists, knew that the only way people would run toward the fox would be if you showed them a wolf. So they created a ghastly alternative. And it had the whole world—including people who call themselves Marxists—hoping that Johnson would beat Goldwater."

- Malcolm X

[WaspInWales]

Tad unfortunate that one of Trump's accusers is surnamed Crooks. With Crooked Hillary already in the mix, I'm sure it won't be long until one of Trump's astute advisers makes a catching jpeg noting a link

[rowan]

Poignant:

If Trump leaks are OK and Clinton leaks aren't, there's a problem

The 2016 presidential campaign isn’t turning out to be the Facebook election, as some people have dubbed it. More than anything else, it’s now the Election Dominated By Leaks.

In the final month of the race, the Clinton and Trump campaigns’ main attack points now revolve around several major leaks that have put their opposing candidate on the defensive. Both campaigns or their supporters have been actively encouraging leaks about the other side, while claiming leaks involving them are either illegitimate or illegal.

Either way, it’s yet another example of why leaks are very much in the public interest when they can expose how presidential candidates act behind closed doors – and the motivations of the leakers shouldn’t prevent news organizations from reporting on them.

Donald Trump’s campaign has been rocked by two major leaks in particular: his 1995 tax return to the New York Times, which showed an almost billion-dollar “loss” that could have allowed him to avoid paying taxes for almost two decades, and the leak of the now notorious video to the Washington Post, where Trump appears to admit to sexual assaulting women.

At the advent of the tax story, Trump’s lawyer immediately threatened legal action against the New York Times. Former Trump campaign manager and CNN’s resident Trump sycophant Corey Lewandowski said the paper “should be held accountable”, adding: “I hope he sues them into oblivion for doing this.”

Yet they couldn’t be happier with the hacked emails from Clinton’s campaign manager that were leaked to WikiLeaks and published late last week. Trump cited WikiLeaks twice during the debate on Sunday, and declared “I love WikiLeaks” on Monday. Previously he had (perhaps jokingly, perhaps not?) called on Russia to release the deleted emails from Clinton’s private server if they had them.

The leak of the video, meanwhile, has sparked rumors that many more tapes of Trump saying things far worse exist. In less than two days, a crowdfunding effort has raised over $33,000 for more damaging Trump videos. Mark Burnett, the producer of The Apprentice and an alleged close friend of Trump, reportedly threatened to sue anyone on his staff who leaked more videos (though he later denied making those remarks).

On the Clinton side, the campaign and its surrogates have spent the past week trying to delegitimize the latest WikiLeaks release of campaign manager’s John Podesta’s emails, while heavily pushing the Trump taxes and video stories. Several people caught up in the leak have slyly insinuated that some could be faked by alleged Russian hackers, while providing no proof that they’ve been altered. The Clinton campaign has been calling WikiLeaks a “Russian front” even though US intelligence officials don’t even think that is the case.

Leaks exposing Trump’s behind-the-scenes comments and actions, however, are not only legitimate in their eyes, but encouraged. Correct the Record, the Super Pac that has openly admitted it thinks it can coordinate with the Clinton campaign in the past, is asking for Trump leaks on its (insecure) website. Correct the Record CEO David Brock has also publicly offered to pay for the legal fees and potential $5m penalty for anyone who leaks the rumored Apprentice videos.

Clinton’s communications director, Brian Fallon, spent all day yesterday explaining why the information released by WikiLeaks is illegitimate because many people believe Russia may have leaked them, then was quick to insinuate he’d be fine if the same thing happened to Trump: “Wouldn’t it be good reading to see internal discussions about Trump’s taxes? Yes…”

As Jack Shafer wrote on Tuesday, the Clinton camp should stop freaking out about WikiLeaks: “Angels almost never leak,” he wrote. “If reporters limited their appetites to only heavenly leaks, they’d starve. I say that if the material is strong enough, you hold your nose and publish the best and most accurate stories you can from them.”

New York Times reporter David Barstow, one of the journalists who broke the Trump taxes story, said much the same thing last week: he doesn’t know who leaked the Trump tax return, nor does he know their motivation, but those facts shouldn’t stop him from reporting on it – or any other story – where he is given newsworthy information by a potentially biased individual.

It should go without saying that allegations that Russian hackers have been the source of several of the leaks involving Clinton and Democrats is a legitimate story worth pursuing. But concocting Putin-Trump-WikiLeaks collusion conspiracy theories and making large leaps in logic without any direct evidence, like Clinton-aligned journalist Kurt Eichenwald recklessly has, does a disservice to actual journalism.

Leaks sometimes make the subject of them uncomfortable, and increasingly large leaks of private emails raise questions about internet security and privacy. But ultimately we should ask ourselves: would we rather reporters not cover what politicians are doing behind closed doors?

Disclosure: the author is the director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, which accepts donations on behalf of WikiLeaks and other transparency journalism outlets to prevent financial censorship.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... media-bias

[WaspInWales]

It looks like The Donald's press conference with Bill's victims has backfired somewhat.

Trump on one of his recent accusers:

Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you

What an utter bellend.

[Mellsblue]

.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It looks like The Donald's press conference with Bill's victims has backfired somewhat.

Trump on one of his recent accusers:

Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you

What an utter bellend.

Jesus. He didn't actually say that did he?

[cashead]

It looks like The Donald's press conference with Bill's victims has backfired somewhat.

Trump on one of his recent accusers:

Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you

What an utter bellend.

Jesus. He didn't actually say that did he?

[jared_7]

F*cking hell, what a disgrace. I still can't believe this is the election to basically decide the fate of the world.

[Digby]

F*cking hell, what a disgrace. I still can't believe this is the election to basically decide the fate of the world.

That seems a little too much, and at least unlike in China and Russia there is an election of sorts.