In the transcripts we see a politician informing Wall Street banksters on wars for U.S. power and domination. She promises to encircle China, claims the rights to the entire Pacific, says the U.S. "discovered" Japan and "bought" Hawaii, considers only military options for anywhere, states that it may be best to just watch while Syrians kill each other, lies about Iran while coming close to admitting she's lying, admits that Saudi Arabia is unstable and pursuing nuclear weapons, proposes that bombing Iran might be the first time a population is actually bombed into submission due to the shortcomings of Iranians, makes clear her opposition to positive change in Egypt, et cetera.
JB: There's also new fuel for the fire about the Clinton/DNC/media triumvirate working to assure that Sanders was denied the nomination. How does that fit in here and how much of a difference does it make at this point?
DS: Well, some of that shows up in the same Podesta emails that the speeches to Goldman Sachs showed up in. From what I've read it is in line with what we saw from DNC email links some months back, which was itself in line with what we observed in the DNC's and media's public content over the past 18 months. So, the question is whether the new tidbits will open any eyes that have remained closed all this time. There is no question that the DNC's primary was slanted in Clinton's favor. The question is who cares and what those of us who care can do about it?
I'm very curious how well the propaganda has worked that has said, essentially, "It doesn't matter whether the DNC's elections are corrupt because Russia leaked those emails, and Russia leaked those emails because we say so, and nothing those emails reveals matters because what those emails reveal matters so much and Russia leaked them, so please hate Russia and stop thinking." This has been so blatant and uniform and repetitive that one has to assume it's had a major impact, but I haven't seen any studies or polls. It's a remarkably crazy thing for people to believe, that the DNC need not even deny or try to excuse its reprehensible conduct as long as it claims Russia was the party that revealed it. If Russia revealed that your store was about to be robbed or your street about to be blown up, would you ignore the news itself in order to focus fully on hating Russia?
JB: It also seems to be a game of "no matter how bad/corrupt/immoral our candidate is, don't forget that Trump is infinitely worse". In that context, where do the revelations about Hillary's true feelings about environmentalists fit in the mix? And did this come as a surprise to you?
DS: I've known for many years that Hillary was a horribly dishonest, corrupt, opportunistic, manipulative scam artist devoid of any moral scruples, or in a word a Neocon. Thus: http://HillaryIsANeocon.com Not only does she hold those trying to protect the earth in contempt, but she is happy to play with nuclear apocalypse through her antagonization of Russia (and Iran and Syria). The inevitable response to acknowledging this situation is shouts of "What do you mean Hillary and Trump are the same?" Well I do not mean they are the same, which is why I didn't say anything of the sort. But I do think they are both below the level of anyone whom one could conscionably vote for.
JB: I hear you. Ecuador apparently pulled the Internet plug on Assange, either because of a plea from Sec. of State Kerry or because Ecuador favors Hillary over Trump and they're tired of his 'meddling', depending on which version you believe. So far, there have been 11 batches of damaging Wikileaks about Hillary. Assange clearly is out to get her. Is there anything they could possibly reveal at this late date that would ultimately make any difference in the presidential race?
DS: Perhaps identifying who hacked the DNC and Podesta and having it not be anyone Russian would make a bigger difference than anything else. We've known from the start that Hillary Clinton took big bucks into her family foundation from weapons makers and foreign nations wanting weapons with which to murder lots of people, and that she then made those deals happen. I've found most other revelations about her rather trivial next to that. So the questions are: Can people be brought to learn about and care about the foreign arms trade? Does lesser evilism have a limit? Can people overcome the taboo on voting outside the Democratic Party? Perhaps a more reasonable question is: Can some people stop what they're doing and save their energy and organize to resist what's coming in January?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
4
