Trending Topics:

Clues to the end of the world shared during final 2016 presidential debate

US Politics
on 44 Comments

Fans of disturbing discussion of nuclear warfare must’ve enjoyed the third and final presidential debate, because there was an alarming discussion of how the apocalypse would go down.

Four minutes is what it takes between the president’s decision to fire nuclear missiles, Clinton claimed during the debate, and their launch. She mentioned this detail along with bromides like “America is great because America is good.” Trump said our allies should start paying for our protection. Bada bing, etc. Polls show Trump could lose by a stinging landslide after a string of accusations of sexual assault. He has said the election is rigged by Democrats. Moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would accept the outcome of the vote on November 8. Trump demurred. 

“I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense,” he said.

(Image: Katie Miranda)

(Image: Katie Miranda)

Amid this troubling discussion about how to transfer power without a civil war (which is what democracy is all about), there was plenty of talk about weapons of mass destruction. Here is the most illuminating exchange on nuclear weapons, according to a transcript published by the Washington Post. Clinton gave a clinical description of how fast nuclear weapons can be fired away at a president’s command. That information was perhaps a subtle way of warning Russian president Vladimir Putin that we remain the fastest guns in the West. 

CLINTON: “I — I find it ironic that he’s raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons. He’s advocated more countries getting them, Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He said, well, if we have them, why don’t we use them, which I think is terrifying.

But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that’s why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.

TRUMP: I have 200 generals…

WALLACE: Very quickly.

TRUMP: … and admirals, 21 endorsing me, 21 congressional Medal of Honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the — we’re defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century.

All I said is, we have to renegotiate these agreements, because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford — she took that as saying nuclear weapons.

What Trump doesn’t seem to understand that defending Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan and South Korea means defending major trading partners and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, a sand seared ocean of oil. But if the American nuclear umbrella suddenly closed, all of those countries could have nuclear weapons ready within weeks or months. The details are unimportant. What’s nauseatingly disturbing is that we are discussing the possibility of nuclear war at all. After all, this is 2016, right? If the arc of history bends towards justice, a nuclear holocaust is the thing that would blow that arc to smithereens. The real end of history.

Clinton, for her part, recommitted herself to a no-fly zone in Syria, a provocation to Russian air forces the U.S. blames for bombing civilians and Western-friendly rebels. She also said that the occupation of Iraq would “not be in our interest,” while not mentioning that the Iraqis also have their objections to American military occupation. Classic Clinton.

This is all happening while thousands of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia stand waiting to incinerate you and your family, if necessary. And with tensions between the two countries going from cold to hot in Syria, I decided  to ask viewers of the debate what they thought about nuclear war. Because it affects them, as biological organisms allergic to gamma radiation.

Some of the people who would not survive a nuclear holocaust, pictured at The Red Derby, a bar in Columbia Heights, Washington D.C> (Photo by Wilson Dizard)

Some of the people who would not survive a nuclear holocaust, pictured at The Red Derby, a bar in Columbia Heights, Washington D.C. (Photo by Wilson Dizard)

The bar where I watched the debate is in my hometown, Washington, D.C.; well within the zone of annihilation for a nuclear strike. It’s always been the top target for any enemy’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. I remember my dad telling me as a kid that we would be the lucky ones after a nuclear war: vaporized instantaneously instead of doomed to envy the dead as wretched, radiation-ravaged survivors scrounging for food, cockroach-like, among the endless rubble of a civilization lost to atomic murder-suicide.  

“Would you want to survive a nuclear war?” I asked Washington D.C. resident Don Undeen, 41.

“Would I end up with superpowers, or would I die of radiation poisoning?”

“The second one,” I clarified.

“OK then definitely no,” he added.

Another was skeptical of a nuclear war breaking out at all.

“I think Mutually Assured Destruction will stop Russia and the United States. I’m more worried about small, unstable countries,” said Ade Sawyer, 27.

Paige Travis, 24, another Red Derby patron, said that Americans and Russians “live in two different worlds.” Having visited Russia, she said: “I think the Russian people are very nice and hospitable. But we’re a powerful country, and that’s intimidating to them. And we’re in competition.”

(Image: Katie Miranda)

(Image: Katie Miranda)

Intellectual progressivism and strongman traditionalism are coming to a head both in the United States and around the world. It’s an age-old argument, but this time with potentially apocalyptic stakes. Trumpist Americans see Russia as a potential sidekick in a movie where all they do is “kick ISIS ass,” as Sarah Palin once put it. The battlelines of American politics, drawn over old Civil War rivalries, are expressing themselves in international relations, with the axis between traditionalism and the Enlightenment. Rule by charisma and ruthlessness, or rule by adherence to rules. 

The debate was tedious and obnoxious to watch in many respects, and harrowing in its horrifying revelations of just how thin the ice is upon which our democracy treads. Trump will say he’d have to wait and see if he will accept the results of this year’s election, a practically unprecedented statement by a presidential candidate. With Clinton and Trump collecting opposing phalanxes of retired generals, who speak by proxy for their serving colleagues, United States appears to be closer to a civil war than it has in a hundred and sixty years. Right now, it looks like any secessionist impulse is confined to the likely loser, Trump, and his ardent fans who have embraced his boorishness and echoed his racist remarks online and off. This is my conclusion after watching three of these debates. We will be lucky as a country if violence at the polls does not mar our attempt to exercise our rights to vote. It is that bad.

But an American civil war would not confine itself to the United States. The politics of this civil war are global, with Trump accusing a “global establishment” of being arrayed against him. In the same way, Russia sees the West as the eternal meddler, the fay mocker of Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s masculinity. In the same way, American conservatives are reacting against what they see as the tyranny of progress, the Daedalus-like failure of the Enlightenment. What the world has in Trump, Putin, and the Philippines’ brutal president Rodrigo Duterte, are representatives of a much older, much more simple way of ordering society, one where hierarchy is absolute and religion respected, instead of the self-indulgent atheistic anarchism of the far left running the show. Why take a bet on some eggheads when you could trust the kind of old fashioned common sense that’s been around for ages: zealous xenophobia.

The faith and practice of multicultural democracy has had less time to catch on, really less than a couple hundred years at most, but the petty balance of our own lives makes it seem like modern, progressive values have been around forever. They haven’t, and remain fragile figments of our social imagination; ideas like humans deserving rights solely because they are humans. This is a new idea in human history, and who knows if it won’t wither on the vine?  Remains to be seen. I’ll keep you in suspense.

_mg_0638

Potential future victims of a nuclear holocaust watch the final debate of the 2016 presidential campaign. (Photo by Wilson Dizard)

About Wilson Dizard

Wilson Dizard is a freelance reporter and photojournalist covering politics, civil rights, drug policy and everything else. He lives in Brooklyn with his bicycle, camera and drum set.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

44 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    October 20, 2016, 10:15 am

    Nukes get the job done quickly. Maybe even nuclear winter. Great. OTOH, no-one talked about global warming climate change (GWCC) which gets the same job — mass destruction — done much slower. My guess? People really do not have a “feel” for how GWCC works, is working right now, and how each day makes it worse. The “habit” of keeping nukes and threatening others with them is surely a bad habit, for it can result in a “mistake” where they are actually used. But the “habit” of spewing greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere in ever greater amounts — or even in slowly, very slowly, decreasing but still enormous amounts, daily, is not going to result in a “mistake”, it is itself a “mistake.” And no-one talked about it. And Clinton is such a big fan of fracking as if the production of fossil fuels should be encouraged just now rather than discouraged in every way.

    So it goes.

    • Danaa
      Danaa
      October 23, 2016, 12:23 am

      Good point pabelmont. Climate change was a barely audible aside from the Clintonite direction, while the Clinton kryptonite Trump, seemed not to have heard the expression, much less repeat it.

      Even if there is no hot war, things are likely to get pretty hot, alright!the sad thing is that jill Stein’s poll percentage – now hovering somewhere just upward of 3%, probably reflects the total number of people who care about climate change. That is, care enough…..(yes, i know many of sanders’ supporters did, but he was expelled from the table of the powerful, along with his basement dwellers. leaving – what? the deplorables and deplorable-in-kinds?

  2. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    October 20, 2016, 10:44 am

    Two horrible candidates, At least Trump has offered to team up with Russia to eliminate the Islamic State head chopping freaks, whereas Clinton has said Syria is the first thing on her agenda, promising to set up a no fly zone and immediate conflict with both Syria and Russia. “General J Dunford, Top US general warns Syrian “no-fly” zone means war with Russia” https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/24/syri-s24.html
    By Bill Van Auken
    24 September 2016
    The enforcement of a “no-fly” zone in Syria would mean a US war with both Syria and Russia, the top US uniformed commander told the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday.
    For now, for us to control all the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war with Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied to the Senator. “That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going to make.”
    There you have it, Clinton wants immediate war with Russia with no fly zones over Syria [Russia will not back down] Trump wants friendly relations, and to do deals with Russia.

    • Tuyzentfloot
      Tuyzentfloot
      October 22, 2016, 8:24 am

      On the one hand you have a dominant mainstream tendency to escalate tensions with Russia to the extent that the risk of nuclear war becomes large. And Clinton is a hawk who is going to escalate tensions even more .
      On the other hand you have Trump stating that the main danger facing humanity is nuclear war and and saying he wants to get along with Russia and North Korea.

      On the one hand you have a smart and knowledgeable candidate who is acceptable to the establishment and who can keep her cool when things get tense. On the other hand you have an ignorant ruffian who is unpredictable and throws tantrums.

      ‘The little scoundrel president who saved the world’ .It does have some degree of movie appeal doesn’t it.

      What bothers me a lot is how many people go along with the escalation of tensions with Russia. This is not just Clinton. She’s not that much out of step with the rest of us. I would like to see that part change. Urgently.

  3. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    October 20, 2016, 11:08 am

    This Top US General is straight out of Dr Strangelove “BREAKING: US Army Chief of staff Threatens War With Russia – We will beat you harder than ever before” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVrQqU1Gwc This has to be what Clinton has in mind in Syria or Ukraine. Scary.

  4. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    October 20, 2016, 12:03 pm

    Where does the US military get whack jobs like General Milley, he did omit to say the US had the nuclear capability to destroy Russia twice over whereas they could only destroy the US once.
    Someone put him in a straitjacket.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      October 21, 2016, 4:54 pm

      Nice to see someone in the UK had the right reflex.
      Unfortunately it won’t occur to anybody over here.

    • lysias
      lysias
      October 21, 2016, 5:47 pm

      What makes General Milley so sure that the Russians don’t have surprises in store for him that might neutralize some of the U.S.’s weapons?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 21, 2016, 11:00 pm

        One would hope that the General has studied all the intelligence reports on Russian military capabilities.

        But history shows that incompetence and idiocy are frequently combined with high military rank.

  5. Citizen
    Citizen
    October 20, 2016, 12:55 pm

    4 minutes–wonder what Putin will do with that factoid.

    • lysias
      lysias
      October 21, 2016, 5:48 pm

      Giving that 4 minute figure was a blatant security breach. Worse than anything the whistleblowers have done.

      And wait and see, Hillary will not be punished for it.

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        October 25, 2016, 9:55 am

        lysias,

        It really does not matter if this is four minutes or eight minutes, or even 20 minutes.
        Once the order is given, it is too late.

      • gamal
        gamal
        October 25, 2016, 11:26 am

        “Once the order is given, it is too late.”

        To true Eva even a blind man in Gaza knows it, al waqiah, the inevitable, once we have the structure that destroys arrayed with means and administrative structures and chains of command, replete with personel… laysa liwakatiha kathiba..you cant deny its happened,

        like he says “when the inevitable happens …..idha rujatililardu raja…when the earth convulses severely but he has already pointed out khafidatur rafieh …abasing exalting, it all depends

        even the blind man can see it must happen

        https://youtu.be/KtKIESuy3h8

  6. mijj
    mijj
    October 20, 2016, 4:48 pm

    > “Clinton gave a clinical description of how fast nuclear weapons can be fired away at a president’s command. ”

    Clinton imagines firing missiles at each other is like some kind of gun fight, including the quaint notion of the “fastest gun” being the survivor.

    This won’t work with a nuke attack on Russia. Russia can guarentee retaliation “while” missiles are in transit. Russia doesn’t have to be quick off the mark. All Russia has to do is guarentee the anihilation of US as a response. Retaliation won’t be about speed of response (or beating someone to the draw), it’ll be about penetrating defences. If the US launches an attack, then whoever commanded it, in the moments before the US is wiped out, then the best she can do is have the satisfaction of knowing that she wiped out Russia first.

  7. Keith
    Keith
    October 20, 2016, 6:49 pm

    WILSON DIZARD- “What the world has in Trump, Putin, and the Philippines’ brutal president Rodrigo Duterte, are representatives of a much older, much more simple way of ordering society, one where hierarchy is absolute and religion respected, instead of the self-indulgent atheistic anarchism of the far left running the show.”

    Whatever it is that you are smoking, it is much too strong and you need to lighten up. Your conflation of Trump, Putin and Duterte is ludicrous. In spite of Hillary’s attempt to tie Trump and Putin together, they have little in common except, perhaps, neither is in Hillary’s league as a warmonger. Furthermore, even bringing up Duterte seems seems odd, along with your libelous description. The last half of your sentence is so bizarre, I suspect that you were hallucinating when you wrote it. “The self-indulgent atheistic anarchism of the far left running the show?” Good Grief.

    • diacad
      diacad
      October 21, 2016, 10:39 am

      It is not unusual that Dizard (must be a Clinton supporter, like 99% of the mainstream media and mainstream bipartisan bigwigs who say the same) slams Rodrigo Duterte, as a “brutal president” – who belongs on a villain list because he dares declare independence from Obama’s “Asian Pivot” provocation. He refuses to be a Pentagon chess piece. “Religion respected”? Duterte sassed the Pope in his overwhelmingly Catholic country! Also Duterte is conducting a real war on drugs (unlike the fake one in this country, aimed mainly at the victims of the epidemic) with real casualties on each side – he is therefore an embarrassment to the US administration. And a source of fear in high places – could it happen here? “Hierarchy is absolute”? Maybe here, but Duterte has sacked half the Philippine police force, and is removing colluding politicians and military figures, while we are afraid to even start this process. It looks like Obama and Clinton prefer other kinds of warfare. The external type safely blamed on the victims due to media coverup. Truly brutal presidents (and presidents-in-waiting) use drones (Obama) and advocate no-fly zones over other sovereign countries (Clinton). Unless you wish to vote for a winner, even though a warmonger – vote for Jill Stein on November 9!

      • gamal
        gamal
        October 21, 2016, 11:27 am

        “It is not unusual that Dizard (must be a Clinton supporter, like 99% of the mainstream media and mainstream bipartisan bigwigs who say the same) slams Rodrigo Duterte, as a “brutal president” ”

        Vltchek details Duerte’s crime, by the way Dizzy one of the very first books i ever read was “Little Brown Brother” have you come across it.

        Vltchek

        “Rodrigo Duterte, the outspoken President of the Philippines has by now, most likely, joined the concealed, prestigious and permanent hit list of the Empire.

        The hit list is very long; it has already been long for several decades. One could easily lose count and get confused: how many personalities have been marked and secretly condemned to death? How many of them actually died?

        It reads like a catalogue of illustrious world leaders: from Patrice Lumumba (Zaire), Mohammad Mosaddegh (Iran), Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Sukarno (Indonesia), Juvénal Habyarimana (Rwanda), Salvador Allende (Chile) to Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Al-Basheer (Sudan) and Fidel Castro (Cuba), to name just a very few.

        Some were directly assassinated; others were ‘only’ toppled, while only a handful of ‘marked’ leaders actually managed to survive and to stay in power.

        There were several grave crimes committed by almost all of them, very similar crimes. They include: defending the vital interests of their nations and people, refusing to allow the unbridled plunder of natural resources by multinational corporations, and standing against the principles of imperialism. Simple criticism of the Empire has also been often punishable by death.

        Mr. Duterte is committing all those horrid crimes, which have been mentioned above. He seems to be ‘guilty as charged’. He is denying nothing; he even appears to be proud of the charges that are being brought against him.

        ‘Is he bored with his life?’ some are asking. ‘Is he out of his mind? Is he ready to die?’

        Is he a hero, a new Asian Hugo Chavez, or just an out of control populist?

        He is definitely risking a lot, or maybe he is even risking absolutely everything. He is now committing the most unforgiveable sins in the eyes of the Western regime: he is openly insulting the Empire and its institutions (including the UN, NATO and the EU). He is even spitting in their faces!

        ‘To make it worse’, he is not only chatting; he is taking decisive actions! He is trying to help the poor in his country, he is flirting with the Communist Party and with the socialists, and on top of it he is basically asking both China and Russia for assistance.

        http://m.journal-neo.org/2016/10/17/will-they-really-try-to-kill-president-duterte/

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 21, 2016, 11:31 pm

        Good comment, gamal.

        Mr Duterte should expect a visit from Ms Nuland, at least. And he should stay out of Elm Street.

      • WH
        WH
        October 26, 2016, 5:58 pm

        Duterte has stated that he’s willing to kill three million people – and he’s talking about addicts, not dealers. That’s your idea of effectively fighting a war on drugs? Anyone who defends him simply for defying the US is either clueless or disturbed.

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/rodrigo-duterte-vows-to-kill-3-million-drug-addicts-and-likens-himself-to-hitler

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        October 26, 2016, 8:20 pm

        WH,

        Ever heard the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?
        Especially with ref to the US?

  8. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    October 20, 2016, 10:06 pm

    Last night (Wednesday) during the debate Clinton asked Trump if he would refuse to be influenced by Russia. Trump said he would not be influenced by “any country” If you watched the Al Smith dinner tonight you witnessed Henry Kissenger, Schumer having some looked like intense conversation with Clinton. The I lobby is one of the groups that own Clinton’s foreign policy. All war hawks As if Israel does not have influence…

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      October 20, 2016, 10:47 pm

      Oh yeah Mort Zuckerman in that discussion group too with Clinton. Best video coverage of dinner on Cspan

  9. Stogumber
    Stogumber
    October 20, 2016, 11:40 pm

    “Trump will say he’d have to wait and see if he will accept the results of this year’s election, a practically unprecedented statement by a presidential candidate. ”
    Trump cannot foresee what more Wikileaks discoverings will come out. He also cannot foresee how much the elections will be rigged at the voting stations. (Project Veritas is just covering as much voting stations as possible and we don’t know what they’ll find out.) So his point of view is reasonable.

  10. Stogumber
    Stogumber
    October 20, 2016, 11:57 pm

    “where hierarchy is absolute and religion respected, instead of the self-indulgent atheistic anarchism of the far left running the show”

    I suppose that Mr. Dizard is here trying to sketch the contrast as it is seen by the rightwingers. But in this case he has misunderstood the rightwing point of view.

    Rightwing intellectuals have for a long time characterized the evolving Western system not as a feel-good anarchy, but as an “anarcho-tyranny”: a system in which the establishment ignores crimes against the average citizens, but persecutes aggressively every opposition against itself as well as every deviation from its ideological line.
    So rightwing intellectuals have seen a lot of tyrannical elements in the evolving system which Mr. Dizard doesn’t see. That depends on from where you are looking: from below or from above.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      October 21, 2016, 12:18 pm

      “Rightwing intellectuals have for a long time characterized the evolving Western system not as a feel-good anarchy, but as an “anarcho-tyranny”: a system in which the establishment ignores crimes against the average citizens, but persecutes aggressively every opposition against itself as well as every deviation from its ideological line.”

      Gosh, those rightwing intellectuals ought to approve of BLM. Unless “average” is a color, of course.

      • Stogumber
        Stogumber
        October 21, 2016, 12:55 pm

        Some of the rightwing intellectuals are indeed admitting that Blacks have a point (e.g. Steve Sailer or David Cole). Even if they emphasize that the “famous cases” are flawed: most black victims were not as innocent as pretended, and a lot of policemen acted out of fear (more or less justified by the facts).
        But Sailer typically looks for help not so much by “reeducating” the policemen but by giving them more non-lethal options.

  11. kalithea
    kalithea
    October 21, 2016, 1:03 am

    Here’s what Trump, Putin and Duterte factually have in common: All three believe that Hillary Clinton (and the Zionist cabal she represents which rarely get blamed) is responsible for the mess in Iraq, Syria and Libya to name a few. Although Putin and Dute generally believe that America and Americans are a force for corruption and degeneration, and they’re not alone because I’d say at least half the world or more are of the same opinion.

    A large part of the world’s population is resentful of the U.S. for meddling on the wrong side of their civil wars and revolutions and with good reason!

    I never really believed the Arab Spring would get off the ground because of the duplicity exercised by the U.S. in regards to who should be free and who’s freedom is a threat to U.S. interests.

    It’s time for the U.S. to have it’s own Yankee Spring, and to interpret someone who wrote this first (as I can’t remember where I read this, maybe here): Trump will hasten the Revolution and Hillary will delay it and therefore Trump must win and as Louis Farrakhan put it so well: Trump will take the U.S. into the abyss of hell…on a rocket ship. And I say: it’s about time and could not be more well deserved, while others less brutally honest than myself will put it this way: it’s a necessary evil.

    However, should Hillary win, then the process will be more like Chinese torture and by the time she’s through with her reign, she will be the most hated woman in America and everyone will run to the Republican side

  12. kalithea
    kalithea
    October 21, 2016, 1:17 am

    Here’s what Trump, Putin and Duterte factually have in common: All three believe that Hillary Clinton (and the Zionist cabal she represents which rarely gets blamed but is just as culpable) is responsible for the mess in Iraq, Syria and Libya to name a few. Although, Putin and Dute generally believe that America and Americans are a force for corruption and degeneration, and they’re not alone because I’d say at least half the world or more are of the same opinion.

    A large part of the world’s population is resentful of the U.S. for meddling on the wrong side of their civil wars and revolutions and with good reason!

    I never really believed the Arab Spring would get off the ground because of the duplicity exercised by the U.S. in regards to who should be free and who’s freedom is a threat to U.S. interests.

    It’s time for the U.S. to have it’s own Yankee Spring, and to interpret someone who wrote this first (as I can’t remember where I read this, maybe here): Trump will hasten the Revolution and Hillary will delay it and therefore Trump must win and as Louis Farrakhan put it so well: Trump will take the U.S. into the abyss of hell…on a rocket ship. And I say: it’s about time and could not be more well deserved, while others less brutally honest than myself will put it this way: it’s a necessary evil.

    However, should Hillary win, then the process will be more like Chinese torture and by the time she’s through with her reign, she will be the most hated woman in America and everyone will run to the Republican side no matter who gets the nomination, and from there the Revolution will spring after the excruciating delay. So isn’t it better not to postpone the inevitable, if what will come out of it in the end will benefit, not only Americans, but the entire world?

    Hard times are coming to America whomever wins.

    Will Syria become the bay of pigs if Hillary gets her way? Remember, she’s no JFK. Her instincts are all wrong and she’s proven this over and over again. She spells the threat of war with Russia and Trump has his own obsession: Iran.

    Maybe North Korea will go all nuclear and make all the above threats moot.

    Hard times coming for Americans; but of their own making.

  13. kalithea
    kalithea
    October 21, 2016, 2:22 pm

    The media is already calling the election win for Clinton even suggesting a landslide, although her Presidency will be built on a swamp of war and deceit for starters, and I believe will end up perhaps more reviled than W. Bush’s was.

    Here’s a thought: since the Republican Party has in part turned on Trump, maybe when he starts to see the writing on the wall he can exercise a sort of Samson option and take down the whole Republican structure with him by lambasting established Republicans as the principle challenge to his campaign and traitors to the conservative cause. Establishment Republicans are doomed anyway. And what would Trump be losing if he did this? Many Conservatives would eventually thank him for demolishing what they were unable to destroy and then could start over and create their vision of conservatism.

    I wouldn’t put it past him to use this last-minute option; as he’s practically leaving the Party in ruins anyway even though W started the job.

    Now if only someone would stand up and tear up the Democratic Party; they so deserve it. Maybe Hillary will do the job because as I stated earlier: she might just end up being the most hated President in U.S. history. I hope so. So she just might take the Party down with her after all.

    And then the Revolution might break out and perhaps the end of the two-party system will follow. It’ll be an opportunity to correct this destructive duopoly after never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, which led Americans to a choice between the lesser of two evils…or is it evil either way?

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      October 21, 2016, 5:01 pm

      Good point, Kallithea.
      In fact, Rump can be a lot more useful than just by taking down the Republican wing of the single party.
      He can take down the Democrats, too.
      It’s simple, really: while everyone is still listening, he can let go of a most virulent indictment of warmaking, Republican or Democrat, and underline how they are all complicit. Call them butchers and murderers to their face, and make sure everyone hearing him gets the message. Insist on our war dead (I know that’s stupid, but it will bring the bacon home.)
      He sure can be as vehement as needed; there is not enough time for the owners of the country to recuperate this discourse, and Rump cannot be totally blacked out by the media in the last few days.
      Of course he won’t do it.

      • kalithea
        kalithea
        October 22, 2016, 3:33 pm

        Thanks. He did say he wants to drain the swampland in Washington if he wins; so will he pass on an opportunity to scorch the earth if he foresees a loss?

        He’s already saying the election will be rigged; the media rigs the system; so what’s stopping him from exposing how the Republican establishment also rigs the system? Not much. If I were him — I’d go Samson and take a wrecking ball to the whole damn fix structure.

        p.s. The fix was laid by both the Zioneolibs and Zioneocons; their agenda is one and the same; ergo the duopoly to secure the Zioneo agenda.

  14. rosross
    rosross
    October 21, 2016, 7:33 pm

    As long as the military industrial arms complex runs the US, Americans will be waging war or threatening others.

    While the propaganda is targeting the Russians and the Chinese the reality is that the US has or is in the process of ‘ringing’ both of these nations in ways which would have Americans apopleptic if anyone did it to them. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    If there is war between the US and Russia and/or China it will be fully of America’s making.

    It is little wonder that recent surveys show world opinion holds the greatest threat to world peace is the United States. People are not stupid and in this day of the internet, it is not hard to find counters to the prevailing propaganda even for Americans who have the worst and most biased media, certainly in the developed world, but probably in the world fullstop.

  15. Dmesh
    Dmesh
    October 22, 2016, 10:27 am

    Im voting for jill stein, im with her because shes with me. Shes the only candidate who wants peace and wants to fight climate change, not russia.

    Clinton has never said “no” to a war. Shes corrupt. She jokes about death and torture, “we came, we saw, he died…😁😁😁”. 😨😨😨 She used the ancient roman saying, ” veni, vedi, vici” about gaddafi, leader of libya, located in modern day carthage, romes ancient enemy. Are we the fourth fucking reich or something? Jeez lady, chill.

    Trump challenging the results IS democracy, not a threat to democracy. Legal appeals are a part of our democratic process. I wish bernie had challenged the results and called out election tampering when he saw it! There will be vote tampering and machine hacking, along with outright lies, but trump got it wrong when he saud there woukd be voter fraud. Leave it to trump to be so wrong but so close to right.

    Trump is not any more connected to russia than clinton is. Trump has said he wants peace with russia, while clinton wants war. Ww3 would be the one issue that beats climate change, which neityer candidate is going to properly address anyway. Clinton loves fracking and everything else that donates money.

    What a terrible choice, folks.

    • fingrinn
      fingrinn
      October 22, 2016, 5:44 pm

      Defiantly interesting times, At 50 years of age, It has finally taken me this long to realize how corrupt the Western media is. Trump may have something there.
      We have Clinton’s E mail released by Wikileaks, Recommending the overthrow of Syria to remove their support of Hamas and other terrorist groups, and to help Israel maintain its sole Nuclear Monopoly.
      The “White Helmets” (Established 2 years ago) who are sometimes called the Syrian Red Cross (Established 67 years ago) are now the one and the same according to some Western Media outlets. This is a group who only operate in Rebel controlled areas and are the main accusers of War crimes against Russia and Syria. Defiantly not a reliable source considering they are financed by 100s of million with cash and resources by the US, Great Britain and France.
      Throw in the reports of the US and Saudi Arabia negotiating to allow ISIS free passage to escape and its not hard to see the America involvement in the current shitstorm in the Middle East which is quickly escalating into a regional war, if not a global one.
      It concerns me the Clinton who is one of the instigators of this current conflict will soon have the power to escalate if further. Scary times indeed.
      The MSM is making much of Trumps and Putin’s friendliness because God forbid we the people must never click on to the truth.
      The thought of a Candidate like Trump with his multitude of flaws somehow scares me less than Clinton.

  16. jon s
    jon s
    October 22, 2016, 11:48 am
  17. kalithea
    kalithea
    October 22, 2016, 3:16 pm

    I just listened to Trump’s policy speech in Gettysburg and watch out Zionist Lobby; Trump’s gunning for foreign interlopers and foreign influence on government and policy.

    I hope he means it. Unfortunately his son-in-law is a Zionist who might not take kindly to his anti-Lobby policy.

    • Marnie
      Marnie
      October 23, 2016, 3:39 am

      “just listened to Trump’s policy speech in Gettysburg and watch out Zionist Lobby; Trump’s gunning for foreign interlopers and foreign influence on government and policy”.

      Thanks for providing the only reason for me to hate him a little less that clinton, but they are both horrible, horrible choices. Here’s the choice (between trump and hrc) how do you want to go – burned at the stake or beheaded? How about both?

  18. kalithea
    kalithea
    October 23, 2016, 12:03 pm

    Marnie,

    I agree with you. Here’s just one of many reasons why I don’t trust Trump: he uses Wikileaks only when it’s convenient for him as an instrument to expose Clinton’s corruption, but earlier stated that Snowden is a traitor who should be executed, instead of an individual who should be honored because he risked everything to demonstrate how the government rigs Constitutional rights by spying on Americans and threatening free speech. So you can bet that if Trump were in power, he’d condemn Wikileaks as an espionage organization and avail himself of all tools of fascist control.

    But if Hillary wins the election we should be discussing how the Left became the Right virulently defending her, and how this trend is directly related to pervasive Zio-neo corruption in politics and the media. We have only to look to Israel where the Left is practically extinct to know who’s pulling the strings and setting the standard in the U.S..

    Sure Trump is disgusting and can’t be trusted, but the good thing about his candidacy is that he’s bringing to the surface that there’s something rotten in Washington and that the media is part of that rot and so is Hillary of course.

    The U.S. system is indeed rigged and it has a lot to do with securing Zio-neo power. But what boggles the mind is that Americans on the whole just don’t care since they have allowed all this Zio-neo corruption to infect both sides and refuse to go in another direction or give a third party with clean hands a chance. So I say whatever fate awaits Americans, and it won’t be good, is well-deserved.

  19. kalithea
    kalithea
    October 23, 2016, 1:25 pm

    After Trump loses, and it’s looking that way, he needs to make an explosive concession speech now that he’s been on the inside and knows who’s really got the reins of power. Sure he should go through the fake motions of congratulating his opponent, but then he should expose everything. What does he have to lose? It’s the only way. You can’t build something better without demolishing the rotted structure first. This is not a reno project. This is a demolition to rebuild and it’s right in line with his business. Now that he was on the inside, he knows who and what brought about the rotten corruption that exists inside and he should expose it all before tearing it up from the rafters down. He knows the power that Zionists together with their Neolib and Neocon counterparts wield, and he should expose it. If he doesn’t do this; he’s done all this for nothing. I doubt he’s that honest; and suspect power means more to him than exposing the truth.

    Now apparently, if he loses, he’s going to launch his own network and it would be a monumental mistake if he hires that Zionist gatekeeper, Ailes, to help him run it. One thing’s for sure: Bannon will be involved. If Trump gets in bed with Zionists and Neocons; he’ll wake up with flees and much worse.

    We’ll see who he really is. My guess is he’s after power any which way, so now he’s going to try the Citizen Kane media mogul route to get it, and maybe if he solidifies the rotten system instead of bringing it all down, he’ll end up just like Kane; a broken, bankrupt, disillusioned man. We’ll see.

  20. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    October 23, 2016, 2:12 pm

    “just listened to Trump’s policy speech in Gettysburg and watch out Zionist Lobby; Trump’s gunning for foreign interlopers and foreign influence on government and policy”.

    From this side of the pond in the UK it looks at times as if the majority of Americans,certainly including Zionist and non Zionist Jews as well as “Christian Evangelical Zionists” simply do not see JSIL as a foreign state with JSILi “foreign interlopers” influencing US Government policy. Witness the Yahoo`s appearances before Congress and the vomit inducing sycophancy from this particular little cabal from the Land of the Free.

    I expect it has been said many times before but it is almost as if JSIL is America`s 51st State and especially when it comes to election time it`s “votes” have to be courted. In fact I am surprised that some leading loony right wing “bright sparks” havn`t suggested that it be given State Status ( sorry about the double stat`s). with JSILis ( excluding of course the 20% Arab population ) being given the vote.

    And guess what a Labour MP in the UK ( as in the ” institutionalised Anti – Semitic Labour Party ” and all that Zionist b…ocks ) recently got into boiling hot Zionist water for suggesting this . She actually said this in 2014. It was only unearthed in 2016 by Zionist researchers and clinically used as part of the anti Corbyn campaign waged by Israeli firsters here in the UK and obviously by the Conservatives and disgracefully by anti – Corbyn members of the Labour Party itself.
    The greatest tragedy in it all was that the MP apologised and withdrew her remarks when she was accused of “Anti Semitism” and Corbyn did not defend her. Wimps.

    Waiting impatiently for a leading UK politician with a backbone to stand up to the Zionist Lobby here in the UK and state baldly that there is no repeat no remotely ” major ” or “growing ” or “institutionalised” problem with Anti Semitism in the UK population , in the mainstream political parties or in Government agencies and to suggest that there is grossly insulting to the UK population,its history and its traditions.. The only major problem ( a problem for JSILI Firsters and the Various Jewish Zionist groups who are barefacedly trying to conflate criticism of JSIL/Zionism with Anti Semitism) is that there is a growing revulsion amongst the UK population against the oppression and barbarities being visited on the Palestinians by JSILis particularly amongst the young who are more politically aware and active.

  21. RoHa
    RoHa
    October 23, 2016, 11:44 pm

    Interesting article from the Saker. Says we’re doomed if Hillary wins, and if Trump wins he won’t be able to do anything unless he follows Putin’s methods.

    http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/10/23/1010237-the-usa-are-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-their-history/

  22. lysias
    lysias
    October 24, 2016, 3:42 pm

    The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed.

    I would hope that a military officer who receives an order to use nuclear weapons questions that order.

Leave a Reply