This news-report will be short but important:
One major-Party U.S. Presidential candidate is so gross that his answer when the radio host Howard Stern said the individual’s daughter is “a piece of a**” was that she has “always been very voluptuous”; his competitor is so warmongering that she says “I am advocating the no-fly zone”, which means that she wants the U.S. to warn Syria and Russia that if they don’t stop flying their warplanes over Syria, the U.S. will shoot down those warplanes. (That’s what a “no-fly zone” means.)
Which of these two candidates presents the bigger likelihood of starting World War III as the U.S. President — of starting a war against Russia?
Which of these two candidates has drawn more media-criticism and lost the more voter-support, as a consequence of these two revelations — the grossness of the one, and the warmongeringness of the other, candidate?
According to current polls, it seems extremely likely that the next President of the U.S. will be announcing a no-fly zone — ordering Syria and Russia to stop bombing ISIS and/or certain other jihadists in Syria (such as Al Qaeda in Syria). What will happen if Russia ignores the warning, and continues bombing all jihadist groups there, including the ones that the U.S. and Sauds have been arming and will be warning Syria and Russia not to bomb? Do U.S. voters care what would happen? Do they even think about what would happen? These Americans are obligated to produce these decisions, but not all of them will do that.
America’s voters will, in fact, be making those decisions, answering those questions, by no later than Election Day, November 8th. But other Americans will abstain, and will simply let the Americans who do participate, make these decisions, which all Americans, and all the world, will have to live with, if not die from. How patriotic will the non-participants — the people who won’t make a choice between the two deplorables — be? How unpatriotic will they be? How intelligent will the non-participants be? How stupid will they be?
Will the people who vote for a third-party candidate — someone who stands no realistic chance of winning even a single one of the 50 states in the Electoral College — belong in the category of Americans who make a choice, or instead in the category of Americans who decline to choose?
Sometimes, news-reporting consists of clarifying what the issues are in an upcoming election. Those are the issues in the current contest for the White House. On the one side is a gross person. On the other side is a warmongering person. The deadline for making this choice will be November 8th.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
This writer has not done his research or is twisting the truth. Russian and Assad government forces main aim is not the bombing of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The civil or proxy war in Syria is confusing but a 10 minute read should show the writers statement to be false.
An outlet with the slogan “Because facts really should be sacred” Should take more care what they publish. This mistaken idea that Russia’s target is ISIS, is killing untold civilians. See the siege and bombing of Aleppo.
I am sorry to say – Patrick – that you have not been following the posts on this site.
As a result, your understanding of the situation in Syria appears flawed.
You have made no reference at all to the roles of the Saudis, Qataris, Israelis and Erdogan et. al. in Turkey
Whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry has ended up confusing themselves and everyone else.
What is going on in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about oil, gas, energy, money and power.
To get an idea as to the principal players, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_Energy, especially where it says ‘Genie Energy’s Strategic advisory board is composed of: Dick Cheney (former vice president of the United States), Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and chairman of News Corp), James Woolsey (former CIA director), Larry Summers (former head of the US Treasury), and Bill Richardson, an ex-ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary..
Does that make it all clearer?
How the feck can Americans find themselves with these two assholes?
Money can’t buy love … Think again !!
I feel sorry for the people of the US. The only winner after November will be Netanyahu.
I am reading Micheal Moore’s book DOWNSIZE THIS! in which he says “…the majority of Americans have decided that the best statement they can make is no statement at all. In the 1994 election, more than 60 per cent of all voting-age Americans – 118,535,278 people, or the equivalent of the voting-age population of 42 states – chose to stay home and not participate. They did so not because they are apathetic or ignorant or careless. They didn’t vote because they have had their fill of it. The candidates and the two political parties no longer have anything to say to the citizens of this country. The Democrats and Republicans are so much alike, obediently supporting the very system that has brought ruin to so many families, that the average American couldn’t care less what any of them have to say. They know that voting will not improve their lives, not one single bit” (pages 11/12).
Michael Moore wrote that statement 20 years ago. What has really changed since then?
The last debate can be summed up by this one cartoon;-
Reminiscent of standing on the tracks as a train hurtles towards you. Scaremongering and dirty tricks aside, the endemic fraud and corruption blatantly on view dishonours those who made so many sacrifices. When such criminality reigns, avenues provided by the system for change, are sadly, no longer viable.
Mrs Clinton shows statesman-like qualities. Mr Trump, for all his faults, appears the more authentic — more “in the moment”. And this may be his appeal. I think he often (often but not always) purposefully talks bigger than he plans to bite (although bite nonetheless — he wants a mandate to govern and not tinker), adjusting what he says to suit the specific audience — although always tending toward the brash in style and tone (brash appears to be his style). Is it machismo? Probably. But he may well turn out more conciliatory than his style betrays (although how conciliatory remains to be seen). And strangely enough, the impetus to war will likely be greater here for a successful Democratic candidate than Republican. Mr Trump may have the strength of character to stare-down the war-hawks within his own party. Some have suggested that a female candidate may give the appearance (a matter more of perception than necessarily reality) of weakness if she were not hawkish [I am here indulging in interpreting the mind of the masses, rather than making a sexist statement]. Whoever wins, of course, will be surrounded by umpteen numbers of minders. I guess it depends then on the minders they choose. Do they merely choose minders who agree with their world view, or do they purposefully go for contrasting agents and those who are prepared to tell it like they see it. And what should we glean from the minders chosen by the current administration? There are more questions here than answers, but I think we need to ask them — even if rhetorically.
Reblogged this on Lolathecur's Blog Below are two very important entries from the "Jewish Encyclopedia". Read them VERY CLOSELY..
There is another aspect, the gross person may also turn out to be the warmongering person if given half a chance at the levers of power.
Meanwhile the warmongering person could also be as much a danger to domestic lives through deference to the wills of wall street. A different kind of gross person.
As an outsider, it seems there is no good choice at this election. We had the same situation in 2015 in the UK really, two parties offering nothing but austerity, with one promising to be sorry about it as a supposed difference.
The real reason for the universal pushback against Corbyn, and Sanders in the US, seems to be that they actually offer a choice to the electorate, and vested powers seem to want to avoid that at all costs.
I agree. Trump simply doesn’t seem very clever or very principled. All of HRC’s foreign policy plans are hideous and frightening but the hope that Trump will not immediately cave to whatever lead-him-by-the-nose briefing he is given by the warmongering establishment should he take office is a faint one, I think. There is no good choice here.
I ask all women this single question: ‘would you prefer a guy who leers at your tits and pinches your ass or a woman who blows up your kids?’
The only question is whether the leering groping guy decides to blow up your kids after his childish pleasure-seeking…..
My belief is that Hillary is in serious ill health but the Clintons are so mired in corruption that they are terrified of an outsider like Trump shining daylight into their nefarious business activities. Bill is barred from standing again, Chelsea is too callow. So Hillary has to stand. Once she is in, H Clinton can nail down the family pandora’s box and then resign from ill health or carry on as a waxwork dummy, either way with pardons for all parties involved.
The grossest person is the warmongering person.
“Sometimes, news-reporting consists of clarifying what the issues are in an upcoming election.”
That describes no US election I can recall.
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin.