Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Sociopath attack methods

News Stoicism Toxic Managers Recommended Links The psychopath in the corner office Machiavellians Manipulators Tricks Love bombing
Isolation as a psychopath attack strategy Demeaning Projection Isolation as a psychological pressure strategy Shunning Stonewalling Cutoffs and Deniable disclosure
Gaslighting Workplace mobbing Insubordination Threat Bullies Doting  Smothering Emotional blackmail
Devious Political Tactics Surviving a Bad Performance Review Office Stockholm Syndrome Learned helplessness Anger trap Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Ignoring personal boundaries
 The Fiefdom Syndrome Understanding Micromanagers and control freaks Rules of Communication   Female sociopaths Films depicting sociopaths  Anger trap Authoritarians
Femme fatale Superficial charm Psychological manipulation Fake Sexual Harassment Claims Insubordination Threat Toxic managers Female bullies
Dangerous Liaisons The Last Seduction Fatal Attraction The Devil Wears Prada Borderline Psychopaths Divorcing Borderline Psychopath Humor

Introduction

Sociopaths are a pretty wide and fuzzy category that includes a wide variety of behaviors, but have the same core set of personality traits. On one point of the spectrum are Femme fatale, on the other those who wear a mask of a faceless corporate bureaucrats or right wing authoritarian functionaries without sense of humor. Some try to seduce associates, secretaries, etc. On the other hand there petty vindictive micromanagers  who are as far from any overt display of sexual advances as one can get (although that does not exclude some flirt or sex with higher ups in a new meaning of kiss up, kick down authoritarian motto ;-). In office environment power relations are not equal and boss can always manipulate you , because he is the one that control money. The threat of unemployment is a great threat. which is difficult to address! Family members also can control you not only using some manipulative schemes, but more directly using their control of money.

Still it make sense to know "the bag of tricks" used. that does not gives you automatically a protection, but you can at least communicate more appropriately with such a person (see Negative Politeness  and  Diplomatic Communication for a starting points). As a reader of the book Who's Pulling Your Strings How to Break the Cycle of Manipulation and Regain Control of Your Life  noted in his review:

I read this book to help me deal with a co-worker who is controlling and manipulative. It's helpful in that it describes the whys' and wherefor's of manipulation but there are not many suggestions for exactly what to say or respond when the manipulation starts. Telling someone who's inadvertently become the target of a controller/manipulator to "stand up to the manipulator" isn't helpful. People become targets because they don't know how to do that. This book would have been better if there were real responses for dealing with controllers and manipulators.
 

Often when you try to stand up to a sociopath he/she escalates.  Be ready for that.

One important point about gender equality ;-). Finnish researcher Kaj Bjorkqvist found is that girls are no less aggressive than boys; they're just aggressive in different ways. Instead of fighting on the playground like the boys, they play subtle mind games that may be even more damaging than a black eye. Male bullying is comprised of direct behaviors such as teasing, taunting, threatening. Female bullies attacks are typically more indirect and directed at causing a target to be socially isolated through intentional exclusion. So it is little surprise that female bosses are usually more cunning and inclined towards more sophisticated bullying and prefer such methods as:

Indirect aggression, which is widely used by most sociopaths involves the use of relationships, rather than fists, to hurt another. They view such clashes as a war for dominance that they need to win at all costs. Rumors, name calling, cliques, shunning, and a variety of other behaviors. This is especially typical for female bullies who use those methods against other females and (less often, males) in schools, universities, sports teams, during recreational activities. The is also an alarming tendency of increasing incidence of physical confrontations between adolescent girls, which is an escalation of relational aggression to "male bullies" level ("alpha female" phenomenon). 

Among typical manipulation techniques are:

  1. Minimization: This is when a sociopath is attempting to assert that his/her behavior is not really harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming.  That the other party is exaggerating the event, etc.
     
  2. Lying.  Often facts to detect false statements are not available when they are presented. One thing to protect you is to know that those personalities will stop at nothing to win and you can expect them to lie and cheat. Lying by omission is a most subtle way to deception -- manipulator simply withhold critical information.
     
  3. Denial: "Classic "Who...Me ?" tactic invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the sociopaths about some inappropriateness. this is done to toss out the accusation, before the victim goes into details.
     
  4. Shunning, stonewalling or other attempts in isolation  Children often close their ears when they do not want to listen to something. Generally the less you talk with sociopaths, the safer you are. See Tactful communication and Minimize office gossip
     
  5. Rationalization: This is an excuse that aggressor is making to justify his reprehensible actions.
     
  6. Diversion: Changing the subject is classic example of diversion.
     
  7. Evasion: Deliberate use of vagueness is classic example of evasion. Evasion of responsibility is often connected with "leaving no written trail" giving orders only by phone or via patsies.
     
  8. Covert intimidation:  Find a weak spot and try to push on them
     
  9. Guilt-tipping: This is a classic trick: to pass the blame for own mistakes, actions or inactions on you.
     
  10. Shaming: subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a mean of increasing fear and self-doubt. Also can be used to weaken moral principles and as such is widely used in seduction. 
     
  11. Playing victim role: Portraying themselves as victim of circumstances, somebody else behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something in return.
     
  12. Vilifying the victim: Sociopath try to pretend that he/she was only responding (i.e. defending himself/herself). This trick is also called the pity play. It's okay to pity someone who has gone through difficult times, but if you find yourself feeling sorry for someone's sad story, make sure the story is true. The pity play should be a warning sign to all of us as this is a very typical tool for sociopaths.
     
  13. Playing a servant role: By pretending working hard for somebody sense (usually superior) goals, sociopaths conceal their ambitions, hunger for status and power and quest to position to dominate others.
     
  14.  Gaslighting": this is  a pressure tactic that is especially successful on the person with the high level of conformity. From Wikipedia:

    Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity.[1] Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

    The term "gaslighting" comes from the play Gas Light and its film adaptations (see Ingrid Bergman in the 1944 film Gaslight). The term is now also used in clinical and research literature.[2][3]

  15. Isolation and stonewalling The most powerful technique bullies (and all sociopaths are bullies)  use is the isolation and stonewalling, Often cliques are used to amplfy the effect and turn isolartion into exclution (Ostracism and various cases of social shunning.). Which in high school environment can take grotesque forms: 

My "lunch tray moments" consisted of going from table to table, trying to sit down, and kids telling me I wasn't welcome to sit with them, and then eating by myself in the detention room, the only place that would have me.

My "gym class moments" consisted of being the girl left over when the last team captain chose the second-to-last girl, and then the other team captain declaring she never picked me and that I was not on her team.

I adapted first making friends with the neighborhood dogs who all accepted me with love and dignity, and then by getting involved with out-of-school activities and making lots of friends outside of school. By 10th grade, I had friends at school again.

Typical set of traits

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Absence of consciousness as a guide to techniques and behaviors

The key element of sociopathy is the absence of conscience. The term itself is a shortcut for "people without conscience." In this sense they are radically different from other people, real aliens: other people are just tools for them, not human beings.  And it does not matter that in the case of sociopaths such an alien appears in an attractive female body. Such people are so power hungry, so dominance oriented that they stand far apart from other people. Again they can and probably should be considered aliens.  Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own immediate needs and desires. As a rule, they demonstrate selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme. To this extent  they are more animals than humans.  Ruthless, slick. often psychically beautiful predators (BTW is not tigers beautiful unless you are put in the same cage) that skillfully entrap the victim and devour him/her.

Everything and everybody is considered by a sociopath to be object to be used in achieving their goals, fulfilling their own needs and desires. And those features are especially run contrary to expectation of "normal people" in female sociopaths as women are assumed to be caring.  Tim Field believes the stereotypical view of men as aggressive and women as nurturing often very effectively protects sociopaths from being seen for what she is:  "A sociopath in a skirt."

Modified Dr. Martha Stout list of the techniques of the sociopath

Dr. Martha Stout, in her book 'The Sociopath Next Door', discusses the techniques of the sociopath -- what she refers to as 'the tools of the trade'. Among  the most typical we can mention the following:

When you find yourself in such a situation the first thing is not only to try to learn basics things about this situation, so that you can avoid typical pitfalls, but also start documenting each day in special logbook. It provides you a feedback and ability to return to previous situation and understand what they really meant and might help to avoid some traps.  In a very real sense documenting your like each day in the evening before going to speed or first thing in the morning must become your habit, Here knowledge is real power and knowledge in thse days impossible without memory "crutches" which log provides. It is your additional memory bank, albeit a very primitive one. 

One important advice is to view your situation is a special brand of warfare as tricks you might face are typically used during the war.

Lying and deception as immanent features of behaviour

The behaviors that a sociopath demonstrates often include as a subset the behaviors of borderline personality. And borderline personal disorder is more frequent among female (approximately three times more frequent in females). That means that rich material about borderlines might help to understand female psychopaths better. The differential diagnosis is difficult but usually sociopath are not included to cause self-harm. In all other major areas those two are very close. The features of BPD include emotional instability, "black-and-white" thinking intense unstable interpersonal relationships, a need for relatedness, a fear of rejection and impulsivity. Historically the term meant  "borderline insanity".

There is no surprise that typically people with BPD often evoke intense negative emotions in those around them. For other people BPD are  "impulsive",  “attention seeking", “difficult,”  “demanding” and, worse of all “manipulative”  Borderline personality disorder and mood disorders often appear concurrently. Some features of borderline personality disorder may overlap with those of mood disorders. Both diagnoses involve symptoms commonly known as "mood swings". An unusual degree of instability in mood  in borderliners and especially bouts of rage (See Understanding Borderline Rage) are typical.  Inappropriate anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights) is an important diagnostic criteria for BPD.

As a rule those traits leads to chaotic and unstable interpersonal relationships. Increased levels of conflict in romantic relationships is typical as well as rapidly decreased satisfaction of romantic partners, leading to affairs on the side and other form of partner abuse.  The majority (around 96%) of hospitalized borderlines have an  eating disorders (including anorexia nervosa and bulimia).  Substance abuse is also a common problem in BPD. This might well be due to impulsivity or as a coping mechanism, and 50-70% percent of psychiatric inpatients with BPD meet criteria for a substance abuse disorder. Alcohol dependence is the most typical, but is often combined with the abuse of other drugs.

Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD by many of those who treat the disorder as well as by the DSM-IV.  Borderlines typically are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, and worse.

Manipulation and deceit are viewed as common features of BPD by many of those who treat the disorder as well as by the DSM-IV.  Borderlines typically are ruthless, conniving, mean, heartless, two-faced, and worse. 

The prevalence of BPD in the general population is  1-2%.  Borderline personality disorder is diagnosed in three times as many females as males. It's like a feminine version of sociopathy, and is nearly as dangerous. While it is diagnosed only in individuals over the age of 18, symptoms necessary to establish the disorder often demonstrate itself in adolescents.

Manipulative,  demanding, and attention seeking; at the same time impulsive and reckless

Due of "BPD troika" of traits:  “manipulative” +  “demanding” + “attention seeking" this group is seen as among the most challenging groups of psychiatric patients, requiring a high degree of skill and training for both the psychiatrists, and nurses involved.

Recklessness in general is very typical trait of BPD that makes them very similar to sociopaths.  Like sociopaths they are impulsive and easily engage in self-destructive behaviors including alcohol or drug abuse, promiscuous (and intense) sexuality. Many are attracted to gambling.

Impulsivity, Recklessness along with "courage under fire" are very typical traits

Oscillations between idealizing and demonizing others (intense love changes to intense hate with no "grey area") is another typical symptom (kind of bipolar relationships). This, combined with mood swings,  undermines relationships with family, friends, and co-workers.

Another telling symptom is attempts to cause harm to oneself. Suicidal or self-harming behavior is one of the core diagnostic criteria that help to provide a differential diagnose as most listed traits are common for other types of disorders too and first of all to female psychopaths. But psychopaths tend not to harm themselves and have a low suicide rate. They are kind of human Terminators.   BPD patients have high suicide rate (approximately 8-10%).  Self-injury attempts are highly common and may or may not be carried out with suicidal intent.  Ongoing family difficulties can lead to self-destructive behavior. 

To understand techniques used by sociopath you need to keep in mind that they can use any known technique of entrapment of the victim. And this capability is amplified by their typical traits which make them perfect in the role of seducers and entrapment artists.  If you think that they would never attempt film your intercourse with them and use it later to blackmail you, think again.  Among traits that are often present  as a constellation and  that you need to be aware of are:

To understand what those short description really mean is not easy. Words does not communicate the whole picture here. That means that need to watch several movies such as "Dangerous liaisons" which spells out well the process of psychopathic seduction.

Idealize-seduce-devalue-discard cycle

As narcissists are often sex addicts, narcissist managers represent direct danger to female subordinates, such as secretaries due to their propensity to seduce. To seduce just to prove that they can. The other person is just a tool designed to increase their self-word, another "conquest". Paradoxically this is also true for females, which also are often sex addicts in their own right and like to "collect trophies". While people typically view seduction narrowly as purely sexual in nature, but  actually the concept is wider then that. Wikipedia gives the following definition: 

Seduction is the process of deliberately enticing a person, to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; to corrupt, to persuade or induce to engage in sexual behaviour. The word seduction stems from Latin and means literally "to lead astray". As a result, the term may have a positive or negative connotation. Famous seducers from history or legend include Lilith, Giacomo Casanova and the fictional character Don Juan. Seduction as a phenomenon is not the subject of scientific interest, although similar, more specific terms like short-term mating, casual sex or mating strategies are used in evolutionary psychology.[1] The Internet enabled the existence of a seduction community which is based on pseudoscientific discourse on seduction.

Seduction, seen negatively, involves temptation and enticement, often sexual in nature, to lead someone astray into a behavioral choice they would not have made if they were not in a state of sexual arousal. Seen positively, seduction is a synonym for the act of charming someone — male or female — by an appeal to the senses, often with the goal of reducing unfounded fears and leading to their "sexual emancipation" Some sides in contemporary academic debate state that the morality of seduction depends on the long-term impacts on the individuals concerned, rather than the act itself, and may not necessarily carry the negative connotations expressed in dictionary definitions.[2]

Which most commonly is discussed in the context of Narcissism, but has much wider applicability

See Classic cycle of sociopathic relations (idealize-seduce-devalue-discard).

At the end of relationship considerable effort are put to made it very clear that everything was the victims fault.  See Blaming the victim

Blaming the victim

Blaming the victim is the essence of devaluation. sociopath lie so easily that  after they methodically and systematically destroy the relationship, they can present her former partner to the outsiders as a worthless, horrible human.  Also after they are in relationship for some time, t hey are never satisfied and are always looking for a new better target. Always. And having no moral principles (in other words being naturally promiscuous)  they behave opportunistically, if they have a chance to get a new "fresh" partner, who looks to them more promising then the old one, of only because of the excitement of a chase.   Feeling Like Spilling Your Guts to the Narcissist?

Remember: Pointing fingers at narcissists is difficult for Non-Ns. We want to be fair. We want to be honest. For every finger pointed at the N, we have three pointed back towards ourselves. So in order to feel good about ourselves, we can admit to having flaws, shadows and defects, too. But we CANNOT, SHOULD NOT, DO NOT need to admit this to the narcissist. It’s not good for YOU and it’s definitely NOT good for the narcissist.

When narcissists feel threatened, they cannot stop themselves from using whatever ammunition they have to defend themselves. Some narcissists regret their behavior afterwards but not nearly as much as we regret having trusted them. 

See Films depicting sociopaths

Sociopath look at human relations, including sexual relations as the war of conquest

You should remember  famous saying that "War is a continuation of policy by other means". that suggest the value of  your own "war plan" as measure that help to counteract their plans. Of course plans are ruined at first contract with reality, but that does not diminish their importance.  Read one or several books ob the subject. Go to the library and study the topic like military study their craft. It can save your life.  That fact that you have found this page is good, but you need more efforts.  Much more efforts. 

That also  might help you to avoid some common presumptions, mistakes and pitfalls typical for "normal" people, when they are face such a situation. Especially it this is your first encounter the judicial (it's judicial, not justice as as you soon find out it's not about justice ;-) system.

Knowledge here is a real power and helps to avoid a nasty surprise of the mean, dirty tricks used against you. Expect a character assassination. Like in real warfare, be ready that opponent will use dirty tricks against you to win in court. Prepare for false accusations. Beware of traps. Try to minimize communication and practice Negative Politeness.

First of all, like in real war, there is a "fog of war" over the whole situation (i.e., you are facing incomplete, dubious, and often completely erroneous information and high levels of fear, doubt, and excitement). Here keeping daily log might be of tremendous help as it might slightly help to see though the fog. Still the level of uncertainty is high, which complicate rational assessment of the situation so delays with the reaction and keep your cards close to your chest. This simple tactic might in many cases be not detrimental, but advantageous.

Actually studying war tactics which were discussed for example in famous Clausewitz On War (available free from clausewitz.com) and The Art of War  is not a bad idea. Among them (cited from Wikipedia):

For a sociopath the stable personality does not really exist

For a sociopath the stable personality does not really exist. Everything including current personality is built on lies, and carefully woven together to entrap you.  As our focus is on corporate environment, it is important to know that micromanagers are most often females and that the majority of their victims are also females.  In Lovefraud Blog  post  When women are sociopaths-psychopaths the author aptly noted:

There is actually very little research data available regarding sociopathy in non-criminals and in women. The little research that has been done reveals that sociopathy in women entails two or three main features that are similar to those found in men.

Namely, sociopaths lack empathy and enjoy manipulating and exploiting others. Violent and impulsive behavior is less common in sociopathic women. This fact may make them more dangerous, as they more easily blend in with the rest of society.

The key traits of sociopathic females

A recent study of adolescent girls in detention performed by Crystal L. Schrum, M.A. and Randall T. Salekin, Ph.D. of the University of Alabama and reported in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, revealed the core qualities that best described young sociopaths. The teens were callous and lacked empathy, had a grandiose sense of self worth and were conning and manipulative. They were also likely to engage in impersonal sexual relationships. Importantly, the researchers revealed that sociopaths did not necessarily have “shallow emotions.” Again the lack of impulsivity ... make a sociopath more difficult to spot.

... ... ...

The case of Michelle Drake also illustrates something else about sociopaths. The courts are more likely to go easy on them. This attitude of the courts may reflect the fact that many people excuse the behavior of sociopaths and feel sorry for them. Look at the cases of women in the news lately. We don’t know if the women involved are sociopaths, however, these cases do illustrate the double standard that exists in how we judge female as opposed to male antisocial behavior. Several women teachers have been found guilty of sexually exploiting students. They were treated very leniently for the same crimes that would have put a man in jail for many years.

So personality they present to you is just a convenient fabrication created for particular purpose by their talented inner cinematographic director.  That means that for a victim the relationship is not based on informed choice. The sociopath chooses you, exploits you and moves in. Outsiders, without the benefit of knowing the details, may see sometimes discrepancies between the mask and behavior, but we tend to discount these observations, and may even spend energy convincing our friends that this is accidental deviations of generally good person. Third, because everything is faked it usually does not last long.

Relationship between psychopathic boss and his/her subordinates in corporate environment often involve victimization. It often goes far beyond trying to take advantage of someone by deception and includes projection and gaslighting. The victimization is predatory in nature; it often leads to severe financial, physical or emotional harm for the individual. Only recently has society begun to deal with female bullying, perhaps more insidious because it rarely involves fists. Rather pointed barbs, cruel remarks and isolation of the victim are used, frequently leaving much more lasting damage.

Ends justify means mentality,  complete amorality

Female psychopath approach to personal relations much like to war of conquest.  It is all about domination and power.  There is no emotional attachment to anybody. Everybody is just a tool. We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else. And what female psychopath wants most is the power to define your reality. Often this is done via exploiting sexual attractiveness.

Movies that can help study techniques used by sociopaths 

Some movies, especially Bad girl category of movies (Wikipedia)  provide additional insights into techniques used and ways of exploiting sexual attractiveness (which for them is just a weapon like stiletto):

"Bad girl movies" are a subcategory, mostly of films noir, labeled by latter-day movie buffs to describe the dark films of the 1940s and 1950s starring provocatively beautiful women on the wrong side of the spirit and/or the letter of the law. The movie posters to these films usually featured sexy artwork of the actress, posed seductively. Currently, these images in original posters and reproductions are as valued as are the films themselves.

Among the classic "bad girl" performances are:

Others in the "bad girl" category have included: Gloria Grahame, Angela Lansbury, Dorothy Malone, Beverly Michaels, Jane Randolph, Claire Trevor and Shelley Winters.

I would add such classics as Dangerous Liaisons  and Vanity Fair (with Becky Sharp character)  to the list. At the same time not all female psychopaths use sexual attractiveness and in office environment some are even routinely attack their female subordinates, who possess those traits.

See also Films depicting sociopaths


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

[Nov 06, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporter Bashes Hillary Clinton from Her Own Stage 'Trapped in World of Elite,' 'Lost Grip of Average Person'

Notable quotes:
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
www.breitbart.com

Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.

Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was cheered.

He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."

The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.

"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point."

At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to escort him off the stage and out of the event.

[Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
www.nakedcapitalism.com

Fiver

Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

[Nov 02, 2016] Ex-Secret Service officer behind Clinton tell-all planning defamation suit

Notable quotes:
"... It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony." ..."
"... His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years." ..."
"... Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons. ..."
Oct 26, 2016 | nypost.com

A former Secret Service officer who published an explosive tell-all from his days guarding the Bill and Hillary Clinton White House is planning to file a defamation lawsuit against his detractors, The Post has learned.

A lawyer for Gary Byrne, whose book " Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate ," has sent notices to Media Matters for America and David Brock informing them that he intends to file suit.

"Officer Byrne will bring legal action against you, in your personal capacity, and against Media Matters," a lawyer for the former Secret Service officer wrote to Brock, a loyal Clinton ally and the founder of the liberal advocacy group Media Matters.

The letter requests Brock and Media Matters to "hold" all records and communications associated with their communications regarding Byrne - including "Any communication(s) between David Brock and The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton" regarding the former Secret Service officer, suggesting there might be collusion between the campaign and her defenders.

It also demands Brock "immediately and publicly retract any statement or inference by yourself and/or Media Matters to the effect that Officer Byrne was not fully truthful in recounting within 'Crisis of Character' details from any previous testimony."

Additionally, Byrne's attorney demanded a retraction for "the utterly false statement(s) that Officer Byrne was not in close proximity to President William Jefferson Clinton."

His lawyer states that "some of our best witnesses to such immediacy are George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, Leon Panetta, Bruce Lindsey, Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton himself - who appear to have already confirmed … under oath … the regular proximity of Officer Byrne to the President for many years."

Byrne claims the liberal advocacy group tried to hurt his credibility to defend the Clintons.

[Oct 30, 2016] Former FBI Official Calls Bill, Hillary Clinton a Crime Family

Notable quotes:
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.

Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.

"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."

Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.

"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."

"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.

Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.

"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.

[Oct 29, 2016] The Nuclear Option - Wikileaks Reveals Even Hillarys Own Staff Knows Truth Shes Psychotic

Notable quotes:
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
Oct 29, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.

Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.

Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people working the hardest to get her elected president.

I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs. Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."

Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.

Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did?

Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could before coming clean.

And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.

And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.

In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?"

Answer: Not likely.

Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.

That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time.

Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.

Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever you have to say to make the press go away.

"I am sorry you were confused."

"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.

Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com; follow him on Twitter via @charleshurt .

[Oct 24, 2016] Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business

nypost.com

Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See: "On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly 2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")

[Oct 15, 2016] Hillarys Public Vs. Private Positions - Deceit

Strausian neocon deception promoted by Hillary...
Oct 15, 2016 | www.ronpaulforums.com
In a recently-leaked speech from 2013, Hillary Clinton said that it is important to take both public and private positions on each issue. Is this the language of the typical politician, or something even more deceptive? How does that explain her positions on Syria and Saudi Arabia?

watch-v=-U9IrnpmeAA

[Oct 14, 2016] This Many Deaths Are Way More Than Happenstance

Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

DuneCreature Oct 14, 2016 9:15 AM

We could always have a few murders and suspecious deaths looked into again. .... A few to chose from:

- Kevin Ives and Don Henry , both 17, crushed by a train, August 23, 1987. Their deaths were ruled accidental, with the medical examiner saying they had fallen asleep on a railroad line after smoking marijuana, but a grand jury found they had been murdered before being placed on the tracks. They had allegedly stumbled on a plot to smuggle drugs and guns from an airport in Mena, Arkansas, that Bill Clinton was said to be involved in as state governor.

- Victor Raiser , 53, small plane crash, July 30, 1992. The second finance co-chair of Bill Clinton's presidential campaign was killed along with his son during a fishing vacation in Alaska. Campaign press secretary Dee Dee Myers called Raiser a major player in the organization.

- Paul Tully , 48, heart attack, September 25, 1992. A chain-smoking, heavy drinking political consultant who weighed more than 320lb. Tully died seven weeks before Clinton's first presidential election win. He had been political director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during Clinton's rise. Tully was on the left of the Democratic Party and usually worked for those who shared his views, however he agreed to work for Clinton because he thought he was the only Democrat who could beat President George Bush.

- Paula Gober , 36, single car accident, December 7, 1992. She was Clinton's interpreter for the deaf for several years and traveled with him while he was governor of Arkansas. Her vehicle overturned on a bend, throwing her 30 feet. There were no witnesses.

- Vince Foster , 48, suicide, July 20, 1993. A long-time friend of the Clintons in Arkansas, new president Bill Clinton appointed him Deputy White House Counsel. Foster soon realized he hated the job and fell into a deep depression. He was found shot to death in Fort Marcy Park in Washington.

- Stanley Heard , 47, small plane crash, September 3, 1993. An Arkansas chiropractor who, according to the book, A Profession of One's Own, treated the Clinton family, Heard was asked by Bill Clinton to represent the practice as plans for 'Hillarycare' were being finalized. His attorney Steve Dickson, was flying him home from a healthcare meeting in Washington, DC. On the way to the capital from his home in Kansas, Dickson's small plane developed problems so he landed in St Louis and rented another plane. That rented plane was the one that crashed in rural Virginia, killing both men.

- Jerry Parks , 47, shot to death, September 23, 1993. The head of security for Bill Clinton's headquarters in Arkansas was driving home in West Little Rock when two men pulled alongside his car and sprayed it with semi-automatic gunfire. As Parks's car stopped a man stepped out of the Chevy and shot him twice with a 9mm pistol and sped off. Despite several witnesses, no-one was ever arrested. The killing came two months after Parks had watched news of Foster's death and allegedly told his son Gary 'I'm a dead man'. His wife Lois remarried, and her second husband, Dr David Millstein was stabbed to death in 2006.

- Ed Willey , 60, suicide, November 29, 1993. Husband of Bill Clinton accuser Kathleen Willey, he was deeply in debt and shot himself to death on the day that his wife alleges she was groped by Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

- Herschel Friday , 70, small plane crash, March 1, 1994. Friday was an Arkansas lawyer who Richard Nixon had once considered for the Supreme Court. Friday was known as a benefactor of Bill Clinton, serving on his campaign finance committee.

- Kathy Ferguson , 37, gun suicide, May 11, 1994. She was the ex-wife of Arkansas State Trooper Danny Ferguson, who was named in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton. Ferguson left a note blaming problems with her fiancé, Bill Shelton. A month later Shelton, upset about the suicide verdict, killed himself.

- Ron Brown , 54, plane crash, April 3, 1996. Brown was chair of the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's rise to the presidential nomination and was rewarded with the cabinet position. He was under a corruption investigation when his plane slammed into a mountainside in Croatia. Doctors who examined his body found a circular wound on the top of his head which led to suspicions that he had died before the plane crashed, but that theory was later discounted. The crash was attributed to pilot error.

- Charles Meissner , 56, same plane crash as Brown. Meissner was assistant secretary for international trade and had been criticized for allegedly giving special security clearance to John Huang, who later pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges for violating campaign finance laws, in a case that enmeshed the Clinton administration.

- Barbara Wise , 48, natural causes, November 29, 1996. Wise, who worked alongside Brown, Meissner and Huang in the Commerce Department was found dead at her desk on the day after Thanksgiving 1996. Her death was originally classified as a homicide but police later said Wise, 48, who had a history of severe ill health, had died from natural causes. A local TV station initially quoted an unidentified police source as saying her body was partially nude and her office was locked, but those reports were later denied.

- Mary Mahoney , 25, armed robbery, July 7, 1997. Mahoney was a White House intern during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. A lesbian gay rights activist, she never found herself troubled by Clinton, but she did take to counseling those who did. She was shot dead during a robbery at a Washington Starbucks where she worked.

- Jim McDougal , 57, heart attack, March 8, 1998. McDougal and his wife Susan were involved in the Whitewater real estate scandal that rocked the Clinton administration. They and the Clintons had invested $203,000 to buy land in the Ozarks but the venture failed and McDougal was convicted of corruption for borrowing money from his Savings and Loan to cover the cost. He died in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas.

- John Ashe , 61, weightlifting accident, June 22, 2016. The Antiguan diplomat dropped a dumbbell on his neck and asphyxiated himself at his home in Dobbs Ferry, New York. He was due to stand trial for allegedly receiving $500,000 from billionaire real estate developer Ng Lap Seng who was involved in a scandal involving illegally funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic National Committee during Bill Clinton's presidency.

- Seth Rich , 27, armed robbery, July 26, 2016. A rising star in the DNC, Rich was robbed at gunpoint after a night of drinking in Washington, DC. The robbers took nothing, leaving his watch and wallet after shooting him several times in the back. Rich had allegedly been involved in the leak of documents that brought down Hillary Clinton ally Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

- Mark Weiner , 62, leukemia, July 26, 2016. Despite his condition, Weiner, a prodigious Clinton fundraiser, was due to attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and was dressing on the day he was due to travel from his home in Rhode Island. But he suddenly felt ill and went to bed and never got up again.

- Victor Thorn , 54, suicide, August 1, 2016. Thorn shot himself in the head at the top of Nittany Mountain, Pennsylvania, on his birthday. He had written four books highly critical of the Clintons. He was also a Holocaust denier.

- Shawn Lucas , 38, unexplained, August 2, 2016. Just days before his death, Lucas, a process server had delivered papers to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington, DC, filming himself as he did so. He was found dead in his apartment in the city.

There are more but these are a good start.

Live Hard, This Many Deaths Are Way More Than Happenstance, Die Free

~ DC v2.0

rmopf2010 VinceFostersGhost Oct 14, 2016 9:45 AM Another one to be Clintonized

[Oct 13, 2016] Anonymous - Hillary Clinton A Career Criminal

Oct 13, 2016 | www.youtube.com

YouTube

Trench Coat 3 months ago HILLARY "There should be no individual too powerful to jail."

kevin b 1 day ago +Eric Shutter tell that to the investigation committee..the FBI and the congress investigation who all covered her with "gross misconduct" instead of guilty by hacked emails to known hacking and homeland security of confidential documents! another clinton victory by paying off or threatening these guys if she gets into office. what an ugly person she is..she does think the law is beneath her to follow...typical elitist narcissistic profile!
Hank Chinaski 1 day ago This psycho bitch will start WWIII... elect her at your own risk.
Tam 1 day ago 0:17 Travelgate 1:03 Vince Foster's Death 1:29 Hillary Care 2:56 Whitewater Investigation 4:44 Cattlegate 5:48 Filegate 6:22 The Clinton Legal defense fund 6:33 Chinagate 7:18 IRS Abuses 7:52 Pardongate 9:41 FALN Terrorists 10:58 New York Senate Campaign Finance 12:15 New York Senate performance 12:50 Senate Rules Violations 13:11 2008 Presidential Canidate 13:45 Madam Secretary 15:08 State Department Scandals and Cover-ups 15:59 Benghazi Terrorist Attack Cover-up 17:12 Clinton Secrets (FoI) 17:37 Clinton Foundation Conflicts of Interest 20:37 Various snippets
hellopuppy00 2 days ago The fact that so many corrupts scandals of one person can be listed for 25 minutes straight like this is bad enough. The horrific part is that American is about to make her President.
Eric Barth 1 day ago (edited) we have no control over who we get to choose and even then electoral votes control th powers above popular votes. Citizens do not matter in this regard whatsoever. This game is controlled from the top while feigning that it is controlled by the people. Raymond Cestaro 1 day ago and this video is just scratching the surface
Erkuht Ateue 5 months ago HOLY SHIT, How can american people be so fucking blind? This is outrageous! View all 55 replies Kevin S 3 days ago Two ways. 1. Dumbing Down of the population. 2. Entertainment. It is sickening!
Tom F 48 minutes ago Past Mobsters never come close to besting this bitch and her Billy.
Took the Red Pill 1 day ago Holy shit this is amazing. The work here is fantastic. FBI really outdid themselves here. Still gonna vote for Clinton, we cannot allow a man who likes Pussy into office. I'm with HER :D
jefftc14 4 months ago anyone else notice or remember how the Clinton's were heavily involved in massive amounts of cocaine smuggling into the U.S. and then hmm look at all their friends they bail out.. all cocaine kingpins..

[Oct 12, 2016] The Case for a Two-Faced Hillary Clinton

Notable quotes:
"... I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent." ..."
"... Even the liberal Harvard Law School … ..."
Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The New Republic

"In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making.

Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

timbers October 11, 2016 at 2:27 pm

The Trail

"The Case for a 'Two-Faced' Hillary Clinton" [The New Republic]. "In an election in which one of the nominees is promising he'll make great deals-that he'll deliver everything under the sun, without remotely explaining how any of it would be politically possible-there's something bold, even radical, in espousing such a practical philosophy for political deal-making. Maybe it's not a popular message in this populist moment, but it would have the virtue of being honest."

I better like the reasoning in Basic Instinct when Sharon Stone just after passing a lie detector test said to Nick in reference to his killing civilians while on cocaine: "You see Nick … we're both innocent."

Yikes:

"We therefore hold that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured,' the court said" … PHH said the law creating the CFPB gave an unaccountable director too much authority."

Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?

allan October 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm

"Can we get this same judge to rule on the constitutionality of the AUMF, Patriot Act, or any case brought regarding NSA spyiny?"

Unfortunately, this very same judge has a long history on those issues,
including time in the Bush Cheney White House before getting a lifetime appointment on the bench,
and for the most part it's not pretty. Emptywheel has an entire archive devoted to him.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm

This segues into an argument in favor of voting for Hillary Clinton that I can't rebut: Republicans appoint bad people to both the Executive branch and to the Judiciary, but Democrats only appoint bad people to the Executive branch. Therefore, one should vote for Hillary Clinton, Democrat. I've oversimplified the argument, but in general, that's what some people have told me, and I don't have a good counter argument.

That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Clinton. She's a crook. I'll either leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank, or vote for Stein, despite my great annoyance over some of the things that Ajamu Baraka has said.

nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm

Merrick Garland, Obama's latest nominee, is pro-Ciizen's United, so not sure how "good" he is. Conventional wisdom about Democratic vs. Republican appointees to the bench would seem suspect to me in a day when the Overton window has shifted so far to the right that the Democratic candidate for President is more conservative, more pro-business, more hawkish, and less environmentally responsible than Richard Nixon,

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

I challenge you to find any Democratic judicial appointments of the past 3 decades that are as bad as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

As for Garland, he's not good, but he's certainly not as bad as any Republican nominee would be. And he hasn't even been confirmed.

nippersmom October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm

Hillary is surrounding herself with exactly the same cast of characters as those who appointed the judges you name. Why do you think her taste in justices will be any different than her taste in policy advisors or potential cabinet members?

After Clinton signs the TPP, the Supreme Court will be moot anyway.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

Obama's Executive branch appointments have been dismal, but his judicial appointments seem to be better - Sotomayor and Kagan. Bill Clinton appointed Breyer and Ginsburg. None of these 4 judges is remotely like Scalia.

I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton would nominate similar judges.

We definitely don't want the TPP to pass. We need to keep the pressure on Congress, so we don't have to worry about what a President might do.

I reiterate: there are many things wrong with Clinton, and I will not vote for her.

I appreciate the feedback.

allan October 11, 2016 at 5:17 pm

Sotomayor has been great, but Kagan has been a mixed bag. She voted (in a losing dissent, along with Scalia, Kennedy and Silent Clarence) , to allow Sarbanes-Oxley to be used against a fisherman for throwing his catch overboard. She was to the right of Roberts on this one.
Even the liberal Harvard Law School …

marym October 11, 2016 at 3:44 pm

Clinton's first "appointment," first in the line of succession, Tim Kaine, is pro-TPP, pro-Hyde Amendment, anti-labor (pro-right-to-work-for-nothing), and pro-intervention in Syria.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Tim Kaine would be in the Executive branch, not the Judiciary.

timbers October 11, 2016 at 3:52 pm

Know what you mean but try asking people who bring up judges as the reason to vote blue, why should we believe that when Dems can't even deliver on judges when their nominee is a REPUBLICAN for goodness sakes? Then take exaggerated offense at being expected to settle for so LITTLE .

Just a suggestion.

Vatch October 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm

I appreciate the feedback. However, I don't think it's clear that Garland is a Republican. Prior to nominating him, there were trial balloons from the White House suggesting that Republican Brian Sandoval of Nevada would be chosen.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 11, 2016 at 5:37 pm

A good counter argument is this: Hillary is a Republican.

WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The New Republic piece is a festering pile of shit, and I intend that phrase as purely descriptive account of the object.

This is a woman who with her husband earned over $139 MILLION DOLLARS in paid speeches to the .1%–the OLIGARCHY–between 2007-2014 ALONE!

And yet the cretin of a human being calling himself the author of this "piece" [of shit] chooses to insult my intelligence–yea, even perpetrate fraud upon the species!–by pretending as if this UNQUESTIONABLE FACT is simply IRRELEVANT to Clinton's "nuanced"–[insert sounds of my heaving vomit]–distinction between her public and private position. A DISTINCTION THAT WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD IF IT HAD NOT BEEN LEAKED BY WIKILEAKS, THE FOUNDER OF WHOM SHE HAS PROPOSED BE MURDERED BY DRONE STRIKE!!

No, MY PROBLEM, YOUR PROBLEM, ANYBODY'S PROBLEM with this avaricious sociopathic warmongering ulcerous wretch is–MUST BE–that she is a WOMAN?!

"As substantively defensible-even virtuous-as dealmaking can be, taking this tack runs the risk of confirming the public's worst fears about Clinton: that she's dishonest and lacking in core conviction. That notion, which has a gendered element to it…." [but might also perhaps not be unrelated to her long history of manipulation, lying, stealing, backstabbing, fraud, embezzlement, fraud, more lying, murder, more murder, more fraud]…

Fuck it. The oligarchy doesn't even have to be good at "public relations" anymore. Might as well get ahead of the curve and move to Brazil.

Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

The "gendered element" canard hyperlinks to a WaPo article containing this statement from one of the interviewees:

"Research on gender stereotypes has shown that women are often perceived as more honest than their male counterparts."

Meaning that even with a head start thanks to favorable bias, Hillary is still perceived as deceitful.

Heckuva job, Hillary.

Prufrock October 11, 2016 at 4:48 pm

PHH is horrible. They purchased my mortgage last year, and started forclosure proceedings within the 60 day grace period while my autopayment was still going to the previous servicer (as allowed by law). Their customer support in Asia lied repeatedly, and when I starting informing them that I would record the calls, they would hang up or refuse to talk to me.

They finally acknowledged their error after 3-4 calls (particularly once I found out I had to keep asking for a supervisor until I was connected to the US), but it was a huge waste of my time.

john k October 11, 2016 at 5:02 pm

It was actually a great investment of your time.

Jim Haygood October 11, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Four legs good, two legs bad - photo of a fetching young centaur from Comic Con in NYC:

http://tinyurl.com/zyujq3q

Not to be confused with COMECON, the trade pact among the eastern bloc during Soviet days.

allan October 11, 2016 at 2:53 pm

Nor to be confused with ECOMCON .

ambrit October 11, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Nor the 'Necrotelecomnicon.' The handy guide to contacting H Clinton's core advisor circle. As for which precise 'circle' (of H-,) H Clintons advisors come from; opinions are divided.

[Oct 11, 2016] It is unclear when Hillary states her public or private position Shes very nuanced, you know.

Oct 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Anne October 11, 2016 at 3:27 pm

I did not take that to mean she hated actual, everyday Americans – I took it that she hates that phrase.

I know she has begun to hate everyday Americans, but I think we should use it once the first time she says I'm running for president because you and everyday Americans need a champion. I think if she doesn't say it once, people will notice and say we false started in Iowa.

And no, I don't know why the phrase wasn't put into quotes, but I note that there aren't any quotes around the part that begins "she says I'm running for president because…" either. As I read the e-mail, it sure seems to me like it's about the phrase, not about people.

WJ October 11, 2016 at 3:40 pm

Well, is that her public or private position she's stating? She's very nuanced, you know.

pretzelattack October 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm

it's just, if she did mean that she hated "everyday americans", it would be plausible. it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

[Oct 09, 2016] The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:41 am

(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches, not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.) Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign. In an oligarchy, this would be natural.

===============================================
Sorry, but as I have said before, I don't believe Clinton's speeches are important – they are just a McGuffin to deflect from the real travesty occurring in plain site – what Lloyd Blankfein tells Clinton at the gladhanding after the speech….
As someone once told me in Washington, nothing TRULY important is ever committed to paper.

none October 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

I posted this yesterday but reposting since it's brutal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrt9GkaQNQ

parody of Clinton ad… I won't post a spoiler.

Jim Haygood October 9, 2016 at 11:12 am

Wish they could've worked in a few seconds from this old chestnut, featuring 0bama saying the p-word:

http://tinyurl.com/gpljv92

[Oct 09, 2016] Hillary Camp Worked With Reporter On Anti-Sanders Story

Notable quotes:
"... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
"... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
Oct 09, 2016 | dailycaller.com
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.

In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.

Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics.

"We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.

[Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clintons pledges sound great. Until you remember whos president

Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
"... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
"... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
"... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
"... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
"... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
"... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
"... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
"... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
"... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
"... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
"... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
"... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
"... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
"... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
Thomas Frank

The Guardian

The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies – and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?

Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now, when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.

"As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy has diluted her promise

…. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable". Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general – that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"

Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:

Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare, child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.

It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing: that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.

The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year "hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008 – followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.

dalepues , 2016-10-08 03:43:57
Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank.
ID8737013 , 2016-10-08 03:12:16
If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
marxmarv , 2016-10-08 01:14:18
[neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
bobkolker , 2016-10-08 00:16:15
Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
cilina2011 , 2016-10-07 22:16:45
I find Thomas Frank's piece very good.

Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast) a fairly high popularity score.

These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain.

The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change.

Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.

And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.

Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about. By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.

So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.

And Thomas Frank is right.

MattThePleb , 2016-10-07 22:05:27
nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!

I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,

they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,

they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification for every shitty thing done since,

G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,

Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency, put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,

they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'

now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her 'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,

Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,

Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings,

Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do,

Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not a neo-conservative,

Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....

and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?

much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:

expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3

accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear war is an even greater and more immediate threat,

pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,

the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great atm,

he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for decades and has done sod all about it,

and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...

if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual racism are those lesser evils,

LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly indifferent to skin colour or religion,

lvtaxman , 2016-10-07 22:01:35
Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off.

She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).

She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?

And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind.

MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees.

Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.

IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06
Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49
This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says?

This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct.

Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.

Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-07 20:02:39
What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.

The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.

As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.

marxmarv Wayne Waxman , 2016-10-08 01:26:45
Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize.

[Oct 09, 2016] Litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy

Oct 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

Kathleen Lake 9m ago 1 2 Hillary, we believe Assange not you and you have earned out contempt. It's sickening to know isn't it, that almost ANY anonymous hacker has more credibility than she who pretends to the throne (and in Clinton's case it is a monarchy not a democracy as thev"line of succession" was determined long before even one vote was cast). Thanks for allowing your (lack of) character to give us one more entry into you litany of lies, corruption, deceit and infamy.", hillary. I will not vote for corruption, lies and oil wars, so I will not vote you... ever. David Stalker 11m ago 0 1 Well what with Bill Clinton gaining the presidency and Hillary the secretary of state position along with the wealth they have generated how could they be none other than establishment for those not familiar with that phrase. and i quote from wikipedia. The Establishment generally denotes a dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation or organization. The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions. And as such my view is she will get the job as President. eldudeabides 14m ago 1 2 In public we hear her yarn about being against TTIP.....in private, the opposite.

She is not to be believed on any issue.

she is the puppet of her neoliberalist masters. centerline 16m ago 1 2 The wikileaks release here
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release
The Podesta Emails; Part One

....In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

sblejo 1h ago 3 4 How can anyone trust Clinton and CO. when they undermined Bernie Sanders, of their own party, because he was winning??? Despicable, disreputable, dishonest, power hungry, corrupt. What else can be said about her and her ilk. And then they blame Russia for exposing the treachery, Americans, so easily led, ignored the truth of the situation. Americans, still do not admit the ugly truth, voting for power rather than ethics. Incredible, she is the other side of the Trump coin. Confucion 2h ago 3 4

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

No difference between Trump and Hillary. They are pathological liars, sociopath and extremely sick minds.

They can be caught constantly in their bad deeds but yet they still US presidential candidates.

Time ago people will reject slavery, injustice and abuse. Today it is laissez faire, laissez passer because US people became zombies. Hopeless of hopeless. europeangrayling 2h ago 8 9 It does not matter, people who support Hillary they support Hillary. Does not matter, either they don't believe it, it's right wing conspiracy, or it's OK, nothing wrong with it.

She has a 'private and public position', that's Hillary, she is so smart and experienced. She is for TPP, then against TPP in the primary, now we see 'her private position' is as many 'free trade' deals as we can, they are fine with it. There was survey that says over 70% of Americans don't know what the TPP is, so that makes sense. She even said she supports cutting SS and raising retirement age in a speech, called it 'sensible'.

Hillary's support for the Iraq war, Libya, supporting the Saudis in Yemen and Syria, LIkud in Israel, the Honduras coup of a democratic government helped greatly by the US, that she admitted and advocated for in her book, but then took it out in the new paper back version.

Where now environmental Native American activists and regime critics are being killed by the new regime, and there's a lot more violence in general, but the new regime is friendly' to western corporate interests and Hillary donors, so Hillary loves it, still says there was no coup at all. Even as the EU and our ambassador to Honduras said it was a coup.

I don't know why, but that Honduras thing really hit me, and Berta Cáceres's murder. I mean Hillary is ruthless, or is so detached from reality of life and what these policies and politics do to regular people, I don't know. Just like Cheney, so it makes sense that Wolfowitz and the neocons support her too. But the Honduras things alone, I can't vote for all that. !-- DogsLivesMatter europeangrayling 1h ago 0 1 This documentary is about Berta Caceres if you are interested:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/faultlines/2016/09/honduras-blood-water-160920064355648.html Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report Chillskier 3h ago 4 5 Hillary Clinton on Assange "Can't we just drone this guy:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562?ref_src=twsrc !-- dynamic22 3h ago 5 6 "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"

This is not going to go over well with what she has been campaigning recently. Trade is the one area Trump has the advantage currentl Reply Share Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter | Pick Report dynamic22 dynamic22 3h ago 1 2 *currently, and this quote how it relates to "open borders" provides him a good pivot tp also attack her on immigration !-- dynamic22 3h ago 3 4 having "both a public and a private positions" is damaging to Clinton, as well as the "bucket of losers" comments. Some of her tepid support for the finance industry to regulate itself is also bad for her.

The comments on bonding with Putin over Tiger preservation are hilarious.

"Hillary Clinton Said One Time She Visited Putin And Bonded With Him Over Protecting The Habitat Of Tigers. "One time, I was visiting with him in his dacha outside of Moscow, and he was going on and on, you know, just listing all of the problems that he thinks are caused by the United States. And I said, 'Well, you know, Mr.'-at that time, he was still prime minister. I said, 'You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we actually have some things in common. We both want to protect wildlife, and I know how committed you are to protecting the tiger.' I mean, all of a sudden, he sat up straight and his eyes got big and he goes, 'You care about the tiger? I said, 'I care about the tiger, I care about the elephant, I care about the rhinoceros, I care about the whale. I mean, yeah, I think we have a duty. You know, it's an obligation that we as human beings have to protect God's creation.' He goes, 'Come with me.' So we go down the stairs, we go down this long hall, we go into this private inner sanctum. All of his, you know, very beefy security guys are there, they all jump up at attention, you know, they punch a code, he goes through a heavily-armed door. And then we're in an inner, inner sanctum with, you know, just this long, wooden table, and then further back, there's a desk and the biggest map of Russia I ever saw. And he starts talking to me about, you know, the habitat of the tigers and the habitat of the seals and the whales. And it was quite something." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]"

So much to go through already. !-- PottyPants 3h ago 7 8 Trump may be the scum of the earth, but he's not a career politician.

Ask any American on the street what the biggest problem with our government is and they'll tell you...

Big Business and the Career Politicians who serve it. Trump is not that. Which is why he was nominated, against all odds, by an increasingly disgruntled voter base.

Read your history books... look at the events leading up to Hitler coming to power... see the similarities with America.

The BLS reports a 5% unemployment rate... that's what all the govt. releases and media outlets use. But if we look at "U-6" unemployment, which counts those only employed part time and "marginally attached" (I.E. TEMPS) that number grows to 10%. Moreover the labor participation rate is at a 30 year low. 50% of American households receive some form of government aid... 43.5 million Americans receive Food Stamps, down from 46.5 because of a forced change in qualification due to that lovely 5% unemployment rate.

The government, and the big businesses that run it, are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and have you believe that things are just hunky dory... in truth we're doing pretty poorly. This "recovery" has been staged on the back of nine TRILLION dollars in TARP and QE, printed out of thin air and loaned at effectively 0%... and the Fed has as much as admitted they can't raise rates or the whole house of cards will come tumbling down yet again. !-- PerspectivesPlease 3h ago 8 9 An article published on TruePundit.com and tweeted by WikiLeaks claims that in 2010, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached the idea of launching a drone strike to take out Julian Assange.

Clinton and the state department held numerous meetings to discuss what could be done about Assange and his site which had already exposed damning military secrets about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq before the promised document dump was to come. The department was under pressure from both the White House and foreign governments to silence Wikileaks.

Everyone in the room had laughed and became silent when they realized that Clinton was serious.

http://theantimedia.org/report-clinton-drone-strike-assange /
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange / !-- DeConstruct 3h ago 4 5

"I mean, in my campaign – I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for.

Yeah ! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Right.

[Oct 09, 2016] Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember her husband and the current president

Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
geoff October 7, 2016 at 3:11 pm

"Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember who's president" (Thomas Frank)

Yes, and I don't recall (hey, that's her line!) the exact phraseology, but something Mrs. Clinton said during the first debate reminded me strongly of Bill in '92. And we all know how that worked out.

No one believes the Dems' talking points any more because they have largely been unfulfilled during the last two Democratic presidencies.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef October 7, 2016 at 3:34 pm

The quality of Hillary's pledges depends on the teleprompter.

She merely reads from it.

[Oct 08, 2016] Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary to fluff your fragile feelings a bit.

Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply
Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 5:49 pm

Clinton agrees with you. She's tired of the bias also.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/784507647395495937

"But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes so very onerous and unnecessary."

Back aching scrubbing and knee straining cleaning to maintain a decent and safe environment is exhausting. Accumulating wealth and being criticized for accumulating it at the expense of others is equally exhausting. She is the personification of empathy.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:28 pm

Hmmm. … I thought this e-mail was a copy of the Wash Exam article, is it really leaks of portions of Clinton's speeches? It's text book Clinton. I couldn't find the WE article and now Buzzfeed writes it appears to be paid speeches.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/wikileaks-appears-to-release-hillary-clintons-paid-speech-tr?utm_term=.vjaomX3oG#.boZ2ZG520

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Buzzfeed has it. Now Intercept. Anyone else see it? OK, now CBS.

cnchal October 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

The more interesting part is this.

"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small – – MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune , is you go to Washington. . .

The sacrifices they make for us.

Reminds me of a saying in racing. How do you get a million bucks? Start with two.

OIFVet October 7, 2016 at 7:19 pm

The way I read Lord Blankfein is that in a way he was being condescending to the help madame secretary and her Bubba.

Waldenpond October 7, 2016 at 7:25 pm

*Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

What? Open borders with Europe? She can't mean Russia. To be clear, she's also declaring support for that greenest of projects, the Keystone pipeline in another speech.

OIFVet October 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Hillary is a very warm and nurturing person. When an 8-ball can't make you feel good about your master of the universe self, you hire madame secretary to fluff your fragile feelings a bit. Or you pay mr. president to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and stand guard between you and the peasants with the pitchforks.

[Oct 05, 2016] It reminds me of a string of wet sponges.

Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:39 am

Thanks just for this:
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always means that he or she is lying.

John Wright October 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

If only Clinton could be like Warren G. Harding.

At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like.

Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration.

The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.

I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.

His death was widely mourned in the USA.

As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.

If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)

Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.

Probably Harding wrote his own..

I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.

[Oct 04, 2016] One interpretation of Hillary actions in Libya and Syria is that she is stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Other is that she was caught up in the amoral bubble of neoliberal empire building that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment views more strongly then any personal psychopathy.

Notable quotes:
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
crookedtimber.org

bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm 332

Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

[Oct 02, 2016] Hillary had called for a physical barrier to keep out immigrants

Notable quotes:
"... Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border. ..."
"... trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there. ..."
"... Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc ..."
Oct 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Edna M. October 2, 2016 at 8:05 am

An important find from the Jimmy Dore show: Hillary had called for a physical barrier to keep out immigrants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jCG566TFZI&index=8&list=LLZJl7owO_xSf0NPr6iXK_0w

Pavel October 2, 2016 at 9:10 am

Wow, that 5 minute video is well worth watching. HRC calls multiple times for walls and "barriers" to be constructed along the Mexican border.

pretzelattack October 2, 2016 at 9:21 am

trump campaign should distribute that to every spanish speaking organization that's out there.

Jim Haygood October 2, 2016 at 10:07 am

Understandably, Hillary was filled with enthusiasm after visiting Israel's security wall and seeing how well it keeps out unwanted brown people. /sarc

[Sep 28, 2016] Goldwater wasn't a liar

Notable quotes:
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Alex morfesis September 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

The arizona republic has Never endorsed a democrat…$hillary is just a goldwater girl wearing democratic spanx(tm)….

Reply
Benedict@Large September 28, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Goldwater wasn't a liar.

Daryl September 28, 2016 at 4:09 pm

> "Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles"

I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak.

[Sep 26, 2016] Hillarys lies are always are well crafted, well designed, kind of lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation.

Notable quotes:
"... First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent". ..."
"... Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ? ..."
"... And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)??? ..."
"... People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't…. ..."
"... An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real ..."
"... So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains. ..."
"... brangelina article . ..."
"... There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. ..."
"... One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard. ..."
Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

fresno dan September 25, 2016 at 7:33 am

"One visible frustration shared by Team Clinton and its many allies in the punditocracy is that many voters are ignoring what they think the rules should be, particularly that Trump routinely says things that are false, yet poll responses suggest that respondents don't care all that much about how often Trump lies or wings it and gets it wrong."

First, I would certainly agree that Trump lies. Which is not to be confused with his inchoate policy prescriptions and vast ignorance. But as I have noted, Trump lies are – to use an overused phrase – "transparent".

Compare to Hillary's lies – which are well crafted, well designed, and are lawyerly dissertations on misdirection and obfuscation. As well as being made to advance policy goals that are for the benefit of the 1%. Is Hillary against TPP in ANY sense of the meaning of the word "against" ?

And with regard to media "fact checkers" – their "fact" checks take political statements at face value, and strike me as hopelessly unsophisticated and naive, and additionally hopelessly uninformed. As well as the "frame" of the question. Do a search regarding whether Clinton started birtherism. And than do a search whether Clinton used racist dog whistles to advance her 2008 campaign. Quite a difference. Which is effectively worse (hmmm – thats a twofer: is Clinton using dog whistles or is the media not asking relevant questions worse)???

Now, for me, its hard to believe that media people, whose ONLY job is to write about politics, are so uninformed as to not understand the term "dog whistle" or to not understand that an awful lot of politics is trying to smear your opposition without leaving fingerprints. How many stories have you read in the MSM about the Clinton foundation that gave a detailed analysis of what they spend money on by someone that you trust really understands and can explain how a charity should operate???

Now, this link to "Brangelina" I think actually is pertinent to why media "fact checkers" are so scorned – the second half of the article offers insight how the modern press relations business runs circles around the media and how people who want to portray a "message" can easily do so.

http://theweek.com/articles/650080/brangelina-matters

People understand that it is all hype, all spin, and usually worse all the time. Is that too cynical? Well, when money and power are involved, it probably isn't….

RabidGandhi September 25, 2016 at 9:55 am

An interesting take in that article, essentially arguing that the public has been gaslighted for so long by PR and image scrubbing that they crave Trump because his egotism is at least real:

You know who does seem authentic? Someone who does everything out of nothing but naked self-interest, and admits it frankly. Someone who makes no pretense that he's trying to live up to some notion of decency. Someone whose only metric - whose admitted basis of action on any topic - is how it will affect him. Donald Trump loves Vladimir Putin. Why? Because Putin called him a genius. What else could possibly matter? To pretend one cares about anything else would be just that: a pretense. His rationale may not be good, but it is at least pure, uncontaminated by considerations of how things will look.

So classic! The example Loofbourow gives to show how people are sick of gaslighting is… a classic case of gaslighting itself, as Trump never said he "loves" Putin, and Putin never called him a "genius". Rather these are the memes that our Acela Bubble gaslighters have been flooding into our brains.

Embrace the meta.

John Rose September 25, 2016 at 10:22 am

And another quote that ends the brangelina article .

There is no perfect explanation that will account for Trump supporters' anger. They seem to share with Bernie Sanders supporters a deep sense of betrayal, of fundamental and unsolvable mistrust. And of course a great deal of that sense of grievance has to do with class, and race, and gender - and the economy and our justice system and racism and education and income inequality and foreign wars and xenophobia.

But we're in danger of missing a huge chunk of what drives the American psyche if we forget just how frivolous we are, if we forget to look at what Americans actually think about and watch in their spare time. And that isn't politics. It's The Bachelorette. It's Instagram. It's the Kardashians. This week, it's Brangelina and the peculiar wave of nostalgia their breakup inspired as we remember a time when we weren't quite this jaded.

The Jolie-Pitt divorce has been hailed as the end of an era. So it is: The end of their union marks the end of a style of celebrity fluent in rewriting the narrative, of spinning scandal into decency and a happy ending so convincing that people threw away their #TeamJen shirts. Sure, sure, this is a "real family." Yes, these are "real people." This story is no doubt "complicated." But secretly, we believe complexity is a con. Really, the end of Brangelina just confirms our suspicions: It's lies all the way down, just as we always feared.

johnnygl September 25, 2016 at 9:07 am

One major problem with clinton's campaign message of portraying trump as nuts and 'unfit' is that 1) trump has no history of mental illness or known medical issues. I've read he doesn't drink and hasn't had any incidents where he's lost his temper and done something crazy that she can point to. 2) the whole 'unfit' thing presumes that people have confidence in the current political class and will reject someone who isn't up to that standard.

Trump just needs to seems reasonable and not like the whacko seen in the constant barrage of clinton ads.

[Sep 14, 2016] Hillary Clinton views almost everytbody outside of the top one percent as Basket of deplorables

Notable quotes:
"... True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention. ..."
"... was taken as evidence in his own mind ..."
"... Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …) Except racism. That issue is context free ..."
"... Kids just feel and act, unconditioned. ..."
"... They are pure and genuine. They are not cheaters. Kids are our masters, we must learn from them. We should be more like kids. ..."
"... Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action. ..."
"... I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes ..."
"... "I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari ..."
"... "In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse" ..."
Sep 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
skeeter , September 13, 2016 at 4:54 pm

"Basket of deplorables," how pithy a metaphor for placing your detractors in a container from which their voices and needs can be discounted. Clinton gives us a great turn of phrase with which we can contemplate her inclination to strip the prerogatives of citizenship – such as the inclination not to select her at the ballot – from her detractors.

Agamben's thesis is that western constitutional democracies inevitably turn to the state of exception and strip citizenship from their peoples on the way.

We have been at it a long time in America. The delightful new twist is contemplating the election of a candidate who tells us that not being a card carrying identity politics connected elitist, or sycophant of, will get you relegated to the ranks of homo sacer – the bare human. And oh yes, the Secretary is inclined to be the decider. There is no functional distinction between the nightmares these candidates represent.

JohnnyGL , September 13, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Check this out….NPR quotes CNBC to smear Trump's day-care tax deduction plan with the old, "how you gonna pay for that?" line.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493755181/trump-campaign-sketches-out-family-care-plans-questions-linger-over-funding

Interesting to see that this is Ivanka's pet issue. Maybe Trump really intends on pushing for this?

It's nice to be pandered to!

RabidGandhi , September 13, 2016 at 2:56 pm

Re: Charles Blow, "if the basket fits…"
_____________

Blow makes it official: this is the Best Election Ever for Team Blue. First they get to bring their "kick-the-left" game up to the next level with the mugging of the Sanders campaign. Then they (finally!) get to copulate in public with their neo-con friends-with-benefits. And now, as Blow demonstrates, they are at last free to spew their hate against the ignorant chumps in flyover: all the bile they have piled up but just couldn't articulate because you gotta be PC ("impolitic" dixit Blow).

Read the comments on the NYT articles or in other liberal goodthink rags: HRC was just articulating what the entire Acela bubble wanted to say but was too tactful. Listen to HRC making the actual comments: there were no boos or gasps, just laughter (sadly showing how part of the LGBT movement has become appallingly intolerant: a vast cry from the movement's origins).

Blow is just one voice in a blue chorus singing battlesongs against the poor and the left. A very clarifying election indeed.

HopeLB , September 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm

Love your analysis!

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 13, 2016 at 7:52 pm

True. I attribute it all to deep-seated self loathing. Somewhere deep down the vestigal organ known as the "conscience" is paying attention.

Anonymous , September 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm

> "Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million" [Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud.

When the story first broke a few days ago, I knew right away (as in, before even finishing reading the headline) that this was another accounting control fraud. It's really sad that NC is the only place where the term "control fraud" is used in connection with this scandal.

HopeLB , September 13, 2016 at 7:25 pm

I was entertaining a variation of that very idea. Some honest to God disgruntled and disappointed Justice Fighter from the FBI goes rogue, righting Comey's wrong, with the Russian Conspiracy twist(polonium) thrown in for ironic flair.

Jake Mudrosti , September 13, 2016 at 3:13 pm

The only positive thing to happen during this election season is the death of mainstream media. With their insufferable propaganda fully exposed, there is no coming back.

I have a bleaker view of human cognition, and so disagree. It must be noted that in the past couple weeks, an NC commenter honestly felt he needed to inform me of my own country of origin, because in his mind this was something that I clearly needed to be schooled about. Yes, the fact that I disagreed with his narrative was taken as evidence in his own mind that he needed to school me - to teach me where I'm from, and teach me how my friends and family died. A clearer example of basic cognitive failure would be hard to come by.

Yet, as 20th century world history shows very clearly, when a culture shifts in that direction, such self-certain lunacy just becomes the new order of the day. It becomes the style.

It seems that many of my previous NC comments mention Robert Jay Lifton's books, and, well, can't avoid doing it again. Critics of his analyses fault them for being "unfalsifiable," etc, but I counter by saying that they were offered in a totally different spirit as a summary of his painstaking observations rather than a cognitive theory.

If there's any hope of digging out of the cultural hole in the near term, I'd say that'd be the place to start.

Robert Hahl , September 13, 2016 at 5:04 pm

Thanks, I will look at Lifton.

Speaking of books that offer deep insights into human behavior without citing any evidence, I really loved Crowds and Power by Elias Canetti.

Kim Kaufman , September 13, 2016 at 3:24 pm

""Wells Fargo Exec Who Headed Phony Accounts Unit Collected $125 Million" [Fortune]. I think it's very important that a woman –Carrie Tolstedt - shattered the glass ceiling for accounting control fraud."

See? We're living in a post racist, sexist world. Now it's not only white men who can eff over everyone else, African-Americans and women can join that elite club of amoral people. And get rich doing it!

Arizona Slim , September 13, 2016 at 6:44 pm

And if you say anything mean about Carrie, you are being sexist!

DWD , September 13, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Liberals believe in addressing every issue within a socio-economic context (Crime, Terrorism, …)
Except racism. That issue is context free

Maybe it is just me but I disagree vehemently with this sentiment.

The reasoning is fairly simple: these issues that are used to divide us (racism, sexism, religion, economics) are made much stronger when the economy is the weakest.

If you need proof look to the great industrial states of the Midwest with their racist (now, never before) governments: Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and even Rauner in Illinois. These political beliefs would never gain traction when the economies were going great. Working people have taken the brunt of the globalization bullshit and the endless contempt of "Clinton Liberals" everywhere (apparently)

Gareth , September 13, 2016 at 5:23 pm

Economic hardship is an amplifier of racism. This is what the limousine liberals never seem to understand. For them is it much more satisfying to demonstrate their moral superiority through contempt for the deplorables.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

The socio-economic context they're talking about is whether they can afford the deserving poor and the opera.

Also, what Gareth says.

abynormal , September 13, 2016 at 3:43 pm

Kids just feel and act, unconditioned.

They are pure and genuine.
They are not cheaters.
Kids are our masters, we must learn from them.
We should be more like kids.

Today we can learn from them, just watch these kids in action.
http://www.lifehack.org/428542/these-kids-really-show-the-bright-side-human-nature

2 days ago i went to a local park just to swing and to be honest, cry… where no one would be put out. took about a minute for a toddler to bring me a tiny flower…i didn't even know she was near. at first i was embarrassed but then realized her heart will grow thru endearing gestures. i smiled and asked her if she could show me how to swing as high as she does. hope yall get a rise out of kids. they can be near at the strangest moment…when we let them.

Janie , September 13, 2016 at 6:40 pm

Been thinking about you with tears in my eyes but unable to find the right words. You have more friends than you know.

Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 7:17 pm

Good on you, aby.

The universe reached out to you.

Romancing The Loan , September 13, 2016 at 3:46 pm

Given that we're all becoming resigned to having a horrible president yet again I'm taking a surprising delight in the proliferating Clinton conspiracy theories after her collapse Sunday (the body double, the catheter, etc.). I hadn't seen this one before and thought I would share with the group – that Chelsea's 10M condo (where Hillary was taken), at The Whitman at 21 E. 26th St. in the NY – is supposedly (I have no idea) the same building as has listed " Metrocare Home Services "

The conspiracy theory is that Hillary has her own private hospital in the same building, which going to "Chelsea's apartment" is cover for.

I'm sure it's not true but, like all the others, it'd be pretty funny if it was and I'm sure the Clinton team would have zero compunction about the deception involved.

Jess , September 13, 2016 at 4:15 pm

That's so sweet and beautiful. I can imagine the scene in my mind, as I'm sure many other readers can.

Mark John , September 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm

It is amazing what one can come up with when one absolutely does not trust another. Let me say, first of all, that Hillary allowing herself to go out on a hot day in the middle of a large crowd after working like a "demon" (!!!) is not the best political move. It is like sticking one's head into the jaws of the conspiracy theorists and saying bite down hard.

But, if, perhaps Clinton is not soooo politically inept, which, Lord knows, she gives every evidence of being, here is an alternative perspective I cooked up with a little appetizer. . .

First item..The Clintons tell Loretta Lynch they want to keep her on at DOJ. But that will be hard to do if she is the face of not filing charges against Hillary. Let's do an impromptu meeting (Bill and Loretta Lynch) on airplane, then put it out in marquis letters so the conspiracy theorists run with it. Loretta Lynch honorably steps down, gets to keep her job if Hillary is elected.

From this line of thinking, conspiratorial as it also well is, Hillary is expected to clobber Donald Trump in the debates. Politically speaking, she has set for herself a very high bar, being so qualified and all. Let's use this illness thing, cook up a minor illness and Hillary faints at the 9/11 memorial. The conspiracy theorists run away with it, she is on death's door, yadayada. Some upside is that she will engender some sympathy.

Two weeks later at Hofstra, bar much lower, she comes back as robust as can be, bar set much , much lower. Headlines read "Clinton Comes Back Swinging" and "Clinton Alive and Well at Hofstra".

Roger Smith , September 13, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Absolutely incredible! Thanks for sharing!

Vatch , September 13, 2016 at 5:11 pm

In the movie "Being There", the super rich guy played by Melvyn Douglas has a mini hospital in his home. Maybe that's standard operating procedure for the oligarchs!

nowhere , September 13, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Two doors down from the panic room (the private server being behind the other door, of course).

Tom , September 13, 2016 at 7:16 pm

And one door away from the emergency chute that empties in the sub basement, where a disused subway tunnel has been refurbished to whisk away any particularly privacy-oriented presidential candidate, safe from prying eyes.

grayslady , September 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

The whole building seems to have been the admin. headquarters for an outfit called Metrocare Home Services before it was refitted as a swanky, 4-unit residential building. Amusing, but no "there" there.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 8:26 pm

Red herring. "This facility is closed or merged with another facility. " (NYSDH)

Besides, she or anyone else with dough can have an ostentatiously well-appointed sickroom within the apartment, regardless of previous or present tenants of the building. And a home health care business wouldn't make a particularly useful front to stockpile advanced treatments etc. for what ails her. They tend not to keep much inventory, in my limited experience.

McWatt , September 13, 2016 at 3:47 pm

Had my catalytic converter stolen by thieves with battery operated sawsall's. They are under the car
and out in two minutes. Locally they get $40.00-50.00 for them. Cost to replace…Dealer $2,200.00,
local guy you know $1200.00 .

Police report in my area from two weeks ago said 12 were stolen in one night's rampage.

Paid Minion , September 13, 2016 at 4:12 pm

I got that beat……..

Car broken into, rummaged thru, change stolen from center console.

Money stolen = About four bucks

Damage to car = Shattered window, prybar damage to "A" pillar and window seals, when they tried to pry the window open = $1500.

Damage/theft ratio = 375 to 1

But according to this morning's post, they were probably tearing up my s##t because they were hungry, so I guess I should blame myself for only paying half my income in various taxes.

Robert Hahl , September 13, 2016 at 5:17 pm

You don't pay taxes, your employer does. If taxes dropped your income would adjust down by the same amount.

Sammy Maudlin , September 13, 2016 at 6:42 pm

That statement is wrong on numerous levels, number one of which is that while an employer may withhold earnings of a W-2 employee for the purpose of paying income taxes, it is the employee that pays those taxes. Until a return is filed and processed, the withheld amount is a deposit made on the employee's behalf. The amount of the deposit is based on the gross wages of the employee. If the tax rate drops, also would the deposit, and ultimately the tax. But the amount of gross wages are unaffected.

Also, last I checked, employers generally don't pay sales or property taxes for employees on non-employment related purchases.

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 7:46 pm

Oh good God, over 40% of the population gets their payroll taxes back.

Yes, it sucks that they are taken out to begin with, particularly when there are definitely pay periods when the 50 bucks could be utilized to pay a co pay or buy things that one needs.

Additionally, if you are paying property taxes to begin with you're one up on much of the population, it means you have a house or a car. You've made a conscious choice to own things. The streets your car and house are located on aren't free. The schools in your communities aren't no cost. I'm so over people whining about paying taxes.

Sammy Maudlin , September 13, 2016 at 8:03 pm

My comment strictly relates to the erroneous characterizations of the responsibility for paying taxes and the effect of a tax reduction on gross wages asserted by Robert Hahl.

I did not intend to address the amount thereof, justification for, nor the proper amount of self-righteousness a taxpayer may exude for paying said taxes.

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:40 pm

getting some of the broken windows policing types on NC?

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 9:16 pm

I probably should have just called BS on his claim that he pays 50% in taxes or called him on his lack of empathy for those that actually go hungry(many of which are CHILDREN.)

My first instinct to tell those fortunate enough to have to pay is to tell them to go ahead and "spite" the system by getting that job at BK so they can live the "good life" on minimum wage and then they too can not pay taxes….of course, they'll also forgo retirement accounts, vacation days, owning a home, struggle with owning a car and the costs associated with it, etc, etc but hey, they won't be paying 50% in taxes.

Personally, I am profoundly grateful that our family pays a percentage in taxes(not 50% but above Mitt Romney.) It means we can afford a car, a house and we have a decent income. It means I can afford that DVD that I pay sales tax on. All in all it means our family is accumulating wealth.

Anyway, I should have directed this at the OP, not you.

Bubba_Gump , September 13, 2016 at 11:49 pm

Pretty sure my federal taxes go to defense contractors to make war. My state and local taxes cover what doesn't come from the feds anymore cause they're too busy spending on war. That's why I complain.

cwaltz , September 14, 2016 at 12:21 am

They go organizations that work on roads, they go to organizations that make sure you have clean water, organizations that make sure your kids don't eat lead, organizations that make sure you aren't eating food filled with e coli- Don't go to the states to help pay for schools or other local programs not covered by your local or state taxes.

Don't get me wrong, way too much money goes to war. On that we are in absolute agreement however, be angry instead that our government has so much potential to do so much more than destroy with that money. Our government could be doing more for things like schooling or health care and it would be a way better use of the monies we pay.

I think the right and left agree that the government is failing us. Where we disagree is on what to do about it. The right thinks that things will be better if the government gets smaller and gets out of the way. I tend to disagree. It needs good leaders that believe in accountability and have vision. It needs people to right size it, not downsize it and people that negotiate in good faith with the private sector, not roll over for it.

A government is only as good as it's leadership and right now we've got some pretty questionable leadership.

inode_buddha , September 13, 2016 at 10:10 pm

I would dearly love to know how to get it all back every year, having spent my entire life under 30k and paying (aggregate) about 20% per anum. What really gets me is listening to co-workers go on about how people go on welfare because the gov't gives them so much money.

cwaltz , September 14, 2016 at 12:40 am

All my experiences with those on welfare is it's a pretty miserable experience. After my stepfather died, my mom had to get help financially for her 3 minor children. They means tested everything, she couldn't even own a car for more than something ridiculous like $3000.

I also know someone who turned down work because actually working hours she did not know would be guaranteed the next month would have cut her food stamps the following month.

It seems positively contradictory to me to set up a system that encourages reliance forever because you are continually threatening the safety net of a person the minute they get a tiny bit ahead.

Personally, I'd love to see the government start doing what it does for the very rich and allowing or helping people to put assets away in an "emergency account(up to $5,000)." Instead it's only the really rich and middle class who get to put money away tax free for retirement(401ks, hsas, IRAs) schools for their kids, health care, etc, etc. All of this money is meant for long term savings which for someone on the bottom of the income ladder is something they can't do because they're too worried about having access to money when that crappy $3000 car breaks down.

It's a stupid, crazy system and I know we could be doing better.

Robert Hahl , September 14, 2016 at 1:45 am

Again, if all of your taxes were lowered, your employer would be able to pay you less, and that is what would happen.

Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 6:04 pm

My guess would be $$ for heroin.

Paid Minion , September 13, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Oxycodone, or something like that. The "Drug du Jour" according to my kids.

It's hard for us old folk to keep track of all of the different ways people are effing themselves up anymore.

An interesting study could be made on how many people have made themselves essentially unemployable due to drugs/alcohol/excessive marijuana usage.

Better yet, align that study with the people essentially unemployable due to giant, unsightly tattoos.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

I am told that the tattoo approval test is a generational thing…if you're old, you are not likely to have one or know a friend who has one (most of time…many wonderful older people – in this country or many other countries – have them).

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Property is theft.

Then you have theft of theft, that is, theft of property.

Property theft is under reported, it feels to me (based on my personal experience and talking with neighbors around here…do i live in a bad neighborhood?).

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm

You must have a fairly high income if your tax rate cumulatively is 50%.

Is that you Phil Mickelson whining that you only get to keep a portion of your 61 million that you got paid to play golf?

Jim Haygood , September 13, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Going from memory here, but I seem to recall reading in a car magazine - late 60s, early 70s - that master thieves in NYC could drop a 4-speed transmission from a curb-parked Corvette in 8 minutes flat.

Dropping a trans is not a trivial task.

Now butchers with sawzalls can swipe a cat converter in 2 minutes, with two quick, crude cuts through a thinwall exhaust pipe.

Just goes to show how skills have declined. :-(

I was a butcher cutting up meat
My hands were bloody, I'm dying on my feet
I was a surgeon 'till I start to shake
I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes

- Rolling Stones, You Got Me Rocking

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:42 pm

I was a-falling 'till you put on the brakes

hope you can believe in

steelhead23 , September 13, 2016 at 3:49 pm

"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari

I am surprised you didn't comment on this, Lambert. The federal deficit is just a number. Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory. I admit to only a cursory understanding, but the real purpose of income taxes is to slow the flow of money through the economy to reduce inflationary pressures. Federal infrastructure spending would boost the lagging economy, with virtually no downside. There is absolutely no need to pay-down the debt. I would be more comfortable with Kashkari as the treasurer of my local PTA than a regional Federal Reserve Bank president. Can't we do better?

Yves Smith , September 13, 2016 at 3:59 pm

Kashkari is a diehard libertarian. And he's upfront about it if you read up on his failed bid to be CA governor.

hunkerdown , September 13, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Kashkari's argument that increasing the deficit implies future higher taxes is bunk – displaying a lack in understanding monetary theory.

Kashkari, as a big banker, would presumably be the recipient of those higher taxes, since he would presumably be part of those financing said deficit. He's talking business, not monetary theory. It's the flexian way to presume that managers are there to be served.

John k , September 13, 2016 at 4:57 pm

Can either cut taxes, boost spending, or raise interest rates to suppress inflation.

Taxing citizens give value to the currency and thereby makes them willing to sell their goods and services to gov to obtain sufficient taxes to pay tax.
So gov levies a tax to obtain goods and services, not dollars that have no value to the entity that creates them.

Left in Wisconsin , September 13, 2016 at 6:09 pm

OTOH, here is Kocherlakota on Janet Yellen:

She argued in part that, thanks to its new tools of forward guidance and long-term asset purchases, the Fed would be able to offset the next recession, even if interest rates eventually stabilized at historically low levels.

Yet] two years into this hypothetical recession, the Fed would be refusing to provide more accommodation, even though the unemployment rate would be above 9 percent and it would be expecting the inflation rate to be falling further below its target for another three years.

But I wonder why the good econo-doctor has only got religion now that he is off the Fed.

allan , September 13, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Wake up and smell the methane impunity:

SoCal Gas to pay $4-million settlement over massive Porter Ranch gas leak
[LA Times]

Southern California Gas Co. agreed to a $4-million settlement Tuesday to end a criminal case filed by Los Angeles County prosecutors over the utility's handling of the massive gas leak near Porter Ranch last year.

The gas company pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of failing to immediately notify the California Office of Emergency Services and Los Angeles County Fire Department of the leak that began on or around Oct. 23, 2015, in the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field. The utility will pay the maximum fine of $75,000 for that three-day delay, according to the L.A. County district attorney's office.

The gas company will pay $232,500 in state penalties on top of that fine and $246,672 for the fire department's response to the leak.

Three other misdemeanor counts will be dismissed when the utility is sentenced on Nov. 29.

End of story. Literally.

This is believed to be one of the largest releases in human history of the most powerful green house gas.

nowhere , September 13, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Definitely makes a strong case for companies to continue to defer maintenance. Seems there is no downside.

Synoia , September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm

It is nothing compared with the GHGs exhaled by the US DOD.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 13, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Who gets the puny $4 million money?

The state government?

The people who are victims directly or (in greater S. Cal areas or even neighboring states) indirectly?

The animals and plants that suffered through the release of more green house gas?

I really hope it's not more money to the state so they can hire more traffic cops to get those who do not stop completely at stop signs.

craazyman , September 13, 2016 at 4:40 pm

another confusing plantidote. Is the plantidoe the yellow flower or is it the green thingies by the rocks?

I suppose it's up to the viewer to decide. Which seems like a lot of work. Some crackpot might choose the rocks themselves and then argue that there's microscopic plants on the rocks and that's what they mean. if you can't see them, that's your problem. The world is like that, crackpots pointing at things only they can see and blaming you for not seeing them. Then kicking your ass if they can.

Things should be obvous. And they are obvious, if you know what's what. Then you don't need to kick people's ass unless they really deserve it. mostly you just lay around waiting for people to see the things you see, knowing that they would if they could. That's a lot different than blaming them and kicking their ass. That's a lot of work - to kick someone's ass. What a pain. Work is to be avoided if at all possible. That should be obvious to everybody

Chauncey Gardiner , September 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm

Thank you for keeping the spotlight focused on efforts of the TBTF banks and transnational corporations to gain passage of the TPP, TTIP and TiSA, Lambert. Appears their lobbyists and the Obama administration have a full-court press underway on members of Congress now. One can only guess at what is being offered our congressional representatives for their vote during the lame duck session after the November election in exchange for trading away our national sovereignty.

clarky90 , September 13, 2016 at 5:34 pm

A behind-the-scenes look at medical education

by Dr Jason Fung (one of my heroes!)

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/big-pharma-behind-scenes/

"……..Doctors get continuing medical education (CME) through events like lectures and conferences. CME is necessary because many physicians practise for 30 or 40 years, and medicine is changing continuously, so they cannot rely on their medical school training, which might have happened in the 1960s. Doctors are required to get a certain number of hours of CME every year. You might imagine that doctors learn from unbiased experts dedicated to learning. Actually, nothing is further from the truth. The dirty little secret is that virtually all CME is sponsored heavily by Big Pharma giving them huge influence over what information is presented to doctors.

Every single level of CME has been corrupted by $$$. Let's start at the bottom.

In virtually every hospital in North America, there are lectures called 'rounds'. They happen in every specialty and almost every single day, mostly at lunchtime. What a great idea. Doctors would spend lunchtime teaching each other the intricacies of their specialty. Sorry, no. Most doctors don't prepare a full hours worth of lecture topic. Most are too busy to spend an hour listening a the lecture anyway. So, the friendly drug rep from Big Pharma helpfully gets lunch for everybody. Free lunch! That helps bring in the audience, but it doesn't help the fact that they still need a speaker………"

This probably explains, IMO, the pickle that HRC finds herself in

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 8:25 pm

I'm pretty sure the fluid and rest that she was prescribed by the MD, but she chose to ignore ,wasn't brought to you by pharmaceutical America.

The pickle Hillary finds herself in is a pickle of her own making.

Anne , September 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm

It isn't about her health, it's about her judgment. It's about the apparent decision not to disclose the pneumonia diagnosis until they were forced to – and even then, they tried three other "explanations" before – hours later – they announced that fully 48 hours earlier, she had been diagnosed with pneumonia. First, she wasn't feeling well. Then she became overheated. Then she was dehydrated. It wasn't until some time after her reappearance on the street looking fine and dandy that they disclosed the pneumonia.

Do you see the pattern? It's the same one we saw with the e-mails. We're seeing it with the Clinton Foundation. This is a woman who doesn't seem to feel any obligation or accept any responsibility for playing by the rules, for following the protocols.

And she has the nerve to blame the right-wing conspiracy that's out to get her when in reality she creates much of the controversy all by herself.

I don't frankly care if she has or had pneumonia or her toenail fungus was acting up, but what she has once again managed to do is make it impossible for people to believe whichever story qualifies as the latest, and if anything she said before then has even a shred of truth in it.

What I fear, and what I do think would be a concern, is if the pneumonia diagnosis is a giant head-fake designed to cover up that she may be experiencing some neurological problems, perhaps related to the 2012 concussion (and Lord only knows if that story was factual) that even her husband says took her every bit of 6 months to recover from.

I get why she would want to hide anything even remotely like that, but what she doesn't seem to understand is that she really has no right, as a candidate for the highest office in the land, to hide it. Again, and again, she allows her personal ambition to cloud her judgment; years and years of important and wealthy people telling her she's one of the smartest people in the room, paying to be in her presence, have convinced her she just knows better than anyone. That she doesn't have to listen, that she has nothing to learn.

And sometimes, she probably does, but she doesn't ever seem to be able to know when she doesn't. That – the judgment problem – that's what she has, and that's what matters here.

cwaltz , September 13, 2016 at 9:24 pm

Oh, I absolutely agree with you she has a judgment problem, straight down to ignoring good advice.

I just think it is interesting that the post I was commenting on seems to be a jab at doctors and continuing education and

Pharma may be responsible for many things, Hillary Clinton's decision not to follow her doctor's instructions on rest and fluid aren't one of them though. They are in no way responsible for "the pickle that HRC finds herself in." Hillary owns that.

Roger Smith , September 13, 2016 at 9:33 pm

+++ great post

Bubba_Gump , September 13, 2016 at 11:52 pm

Agree.

John k , September 13, 2016 at 6:16 pm

Can anybody point me to links to critical reviews of the Clinton foundation?
Thanks

nycTerrierist , September 13, 2016 at 7:34 pm

Charles Ortel is a good source, lots of links here:

https://twitter.com/charlesortel

sd , September 14, 2016 at 1:37 am

Kristi Culpepper
https://medium.com/@munilass

Amy Sterling Casil
https://medium.com/@ASterling

PlutoniumKun , September 13, 2016 at 6:27 pm

Re: EurActive article on soils.

The EU did have a Soil Framework Directive in the works for years but it was eventually stymied by the UK, as George Monbiot has pointed out . One of the good things about Brexit is that it will undoubtedly improve the EU's capacity to bring forward more environmental protect directives – the UK has always been one of the main obstacles in this.

ekstase , September 13, 2016 at 8:00 pm

"As part of the lockout, LIU cut off professors' email accounts and health insurance,"

If, God forbid, someone gets very ill or worse, because they have had their health insurance cut off, will that be bad for p.r.?

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:13 pm

"I am skeptical that a large-scale expansion of government spending by itself is the best way forward, since larger fiscal deficits will lead to higher expected future taxes, which could further undermine private sector confidence" Neel Kashkari

what a commedian

Jay M , September 13, 2016 at 8:16 pm

"In the minds of many, soil is simply dirt, but without it we would all cease to exist. Unlike the water we drink and the air we breathe, soil is not protected in the EU and its quality is getting worse"

and the air and water, better?

(not opposed to regulation)

petal , September 13, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Primary Day in NH. I went about 6:45p, 15 minutes before the polls closed. On my way out, I asked the nice ladies staffing the place if turnout had been light. They said "Very" and made disappointed faces.

NotTimothyGeithner , September 13, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Aren't you out by Keene? Southwest NH isn't exactly a Republican hotbed.

NotTimothyGeithner , September 13, 2016 at 10:26 pm

There were Democratic primaries today for various state offices, but the GOP had the Senate primary and statewide races.

[Sep 13, 2016] Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest

Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
Apr 23, 2016 | New York Times

AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.

But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."

Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."

... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996 dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."

... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest ...

... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated

Rima Regas

is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 23 hours ago

Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.

She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.

Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive trenches for decades. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ

You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 23 hours ago

Yes, Hillary is dishonest.

Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well.

She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie.

If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the way.

They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 22 hours ago

To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.

Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest. By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.

The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit. Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.

So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute money to candidates who don't not help their causes.

Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk.

All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.

Michael Ebner, Lake Forest, IL 7 hours ago

It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for the party's presidential nomination in 2016.

I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so again in November.

Do I have reservations? Surely.

But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as Republican nominees ....

Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats. Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?

Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang. I would have voted for him.

Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.

JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.

LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better choice than Senator Goldwater.

Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist. In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist. I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.

And so on and so forth.

Saints don't rise to the presidency.

David Underwood, is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights 18 hours ago

Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.

The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions, unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.

Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20 hours ago


I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:

-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible. I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012: the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S. not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server. Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.

I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence, but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November only because the alternatives are worse.

Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago

It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman.


Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago

"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady, most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"

Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.

RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago

Winchestereast,

No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better judgment.


Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago

This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.

It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons just aren't trustworthy.

Link to above story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1


Scott Stafford, North America 7 hours ago

Ah. The Five Stages Of Every Clinton Scandal:

1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.

pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago

"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."

Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin" committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.

Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United? Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting money out of politics when the Republicans do.

So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.

Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.

Rima Regas, is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago

Mark,

I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed. People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.

That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay. Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.

Money and greed are the root of all evil.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago

As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney) who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance" requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be in a position to provide such considerations.

And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the briber?

With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".

AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago

People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes.

Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters.

Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line.

Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago

Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton down the National throat.

What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown.


ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

If you are interested in a factually based article outlining the $21.6 million Hillary took in from special interests between 2013-2015, read the AP story. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/21/the-associated-press-firms-that-paid-for-...

Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago

Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated.

In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say, Janet Reno giving a speech.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing ever changes.

Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago

"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago

Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.

We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.

organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago

If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say were lies, they would get fired.

As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military - this will not serve the United States well.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago

It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives, that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.

Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston 15 hours ago

She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.

You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.

In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure.

RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago

I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.

Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable, you could write in "none of the above"

But vote the rest of the ticket.

ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago

@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!

Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United.

Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence policy is bad.

amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago

So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary.

The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination.

Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours ago

Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.

Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.

Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago

``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well.''

Excuse me?

She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.

You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the Clintons.

Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago

She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's "secret plan."

Nixon wasn't the New Nixon, but she is.

[Sep 12, 2016] Serving the Clintonian Interest: The last thing we need is a Clinton in charge of foreign policy by Christopher Hitchens

This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections, but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
Nov 01, 2008 | www.slate.com

It was apt in a small way that the first endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See, for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate column "The Latest Kissinger Outrage.")

It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see the work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.

Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz, for another example.

Related was the result of a House select committee on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee issued a report in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations).

Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.

Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom, when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.

Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.

China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover. And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"! So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.

In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author, most recently, of Arguably, a collection of essays.

[Sep 10, 2016] Pathological Liar – Impulsive, Compulsive Lying, Self-Deception

Feb 05, 2016 | depressiond.com
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types, Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
  1. Pathological Liar – Definition

    Pathological liar refers to a liar that is compulsive or impulsive, lies on a regular basis and is unable to control their lying despite of foreseeing inevitable negative consequences or ultimate disclosure of the lie. Generally lies told by a pathological liar have self-defeating quality to them and don't serve the long term material needs of the person. Therefore pathological lying is lying that is caused by a pathology, occurs on a regular basis, is compulsive or impulsive & uncontrolled, and has self-defeating, self-trapping quality to it.

    Lying or self-deception is a part of everyday human interactions. In many cases lying can be beneficial for those who lie and those who are being lied to. Most of this type of lying with positive consequences occurs in a controlled way, thoughtfully, with careful weighting of beneficial consequences. Unlike these, the lies told by a pathological liar are uncontrolled and are likely to have damaging consequences.

    Pathological lying covers a wide range of lying behavior, from pseudologia fantastica to habitual lying. Lying is a commonly found clinical component with people who suffer from impulse control disorders such as gambling, compulsive shopping, substance abuse, kleptomania etc. Pathological lying is generally caused by a combination of factors, which may include genetic components, dysfunctional or insecure childhood, dyslexia or other type of cerebral dysfunction. Such conditions may host environment that is likely to emerge chronic or pathological lying as an adaptive defense mechanism. Dysfunctional family, parental overprotection, sibling rivalry, mental retardation are among many causes of pathological lying.

  2. Low Self-Esteem And Pathological Lying

    Low self-esteem is a commonly found feature in pathological liars. The lie maybe an attempt to feel good about themselves, generally for a short period of time, similar to the effect of drugs & alcohol. The same lie or deceit repeated over and over may create a myth of personal well-being or success or displacement of faults of own failures on others, thus creating an imaginary fantasy protection bubble, which may reinforce self-esteem. Pathological liars repeatedly use deceit as an ego defense mechanism, which is primarily caused by the lack of ability to cope with everyday problems in more mature ways (Selling 1942).

  3. Pathological Liar – Causes

    Causes of development of pathological lying can be, but are not limited to, one or more of the factors mentioned below:

    • A dysfunctional family;
    • Sexual or physical abuse in childhood;
    • Neuropsychological abnormalities; such as borderline mental retardation, learning disabilities etc.
    • Impulse control disorders; such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping.
    • Accommodating or suggestible personality traits;
    • Personality disorders such as Sociopathic, Narcissistic, Borderline, Histrionic and more;
    • Substance abuse or substance abuse in family;
  4. Pathological Liar – Types
    • Daydreaming Pathological Liar – Pseudologia Fantastica

      Some of the more extreme forms of pathological lying is Pseudologia Fantastica. This is a matrix of facts & fiction, mixed together in a way that makes the reality and fantasy almost indistinguishable. The pseudologue type pathological liar makes up stories that seem possible on the surface, but over time things start falling apart. Pseudologues have dynamic approach to their lies, they are likely to change the story if confronted or faced with disbelief, they have excessive anxiety of being caught and they desperately try to modify their story to something that would seem plausible to create or preserve a sense of self that is something they wish they were or at least something better than they fear others would find out they are. The excessive anxiety is driven by unusually low self-esteem, the person tries to hide reality by creating a fake reality, and once the story has enduring quality to it, he/she is likely to repeat it and if repeated enough times he/she might start believing in it as well. This reality escape can be triggered of a past incident or of an unbearable present for the pseudologue.

      About 30% of daydreaming pathological liars have brain dysfunction. For some it may take the form of learning disabilities, ex. dyslexia. Often those with cerebral dysfunction have greater verbal production & lower developed logical, analytical parts of the brain, thus they often fail to control verbal output.

    • Habitual Liar

      Habitual pathological lying is, as the name suggest, habitual. Habitual liar lies so frequently, that it becomes a habit, as a result, he/she puts very little effort in giving a thought about what the output is going to be, nor does he/she care much to process whether it's a lie or not, it's simply a reflex & very often can be completely unnecessary or even opposite to his/her own needs. If he/she stops & thinks about it, he/she knows clearly it's a lie.

      Habitual liars lie for a variety of reasons, which include, but are not limited to:

      • Take advantage of the situation or misguide a rival
      • Avoid confrontation or punishment
      • Cover up lack of knowledge
      • Cover up embarrassment
      • To entertain oneself or others
      • Reinforce self-esteem, because of failing own expectation
      • Receive unearned praise or avoid disappointment or disproval
      • For no reason whatsoever

      Habitual liars gives very few if any psychical or vocal signs of lying, due to the effortless nature of lying. That said, since he/she gives a very little thought to his/her lies, they are usually inconsistent & obvious.

      Fear is a major contributor in developing habitual lying in a child & further advancement into adulthood, more so in conditions when the child finds truth telling results in more frequent or more severe punishment. Lack of appreciating and likelihood of unwanted consequences of telling the truth may result in frequent opting out for lying, which often involves less punishment & therefore becomes more desirable.

    • Impulsive Pathological Liar – Impulse Control Disorders & Lying

      Impulsive pathological liar lies due to impulse control problem, he/she lies to fulfill his/her present (in the moment) needs, without thinking of future negative effects that can be caused because of the lie. Impulsive pathological liar generally suffers from impulse control disorders, such as kleptomania, pathological gambling, compulsive shopping etc. Those suffering from impulse control disorders fail to learn from past negative experiences, frequently suffer from depression, likely to have history of substance abuse in family or have substance abuse problems themselves, likely to have deficiency in brain serotonin. Increase in brain serotonin may have positive effect in decreasing impulsiveness, such medication may have positive effects, however there hasn't been clinical research performed to confirm or deny this theory.

    • Substance Abuse Associated Pathological Liar

      Self-Deception is an undeniable part of addictive process. People abuse alcohol or other drugs constantly lie to themselves & others to avoid embarrassment, conflict, as well as to obtain the substance. Getting off substance requires learning to distance oneself from the deceit, therefore learning to be truthful is generally a part of any Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous program.

  5. Signs of Lying

    Human detection of deceit can be summarized by the following seven signs.

    7 Signs of Lying

    • Disguised smiling
    • Lack of head movement
    • Increased rate of self-adapters (eg., movements such playing with an object in hands, scratching one's head etc.)
    • Increased/Heightened pitch of voice
    • Reduced rate of speech
    • Pause fillers ("uh", "hm", "er")
    • Less corresponding, matching nonverbal behavior from the other communication methods (ex. the movement of hands doesn't match the substance of the lie that is being told orally)

Reference: (Fiedler, Walka, Zuckerman, Driver, Ford)

Pathological lying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sep 09, 2016] Hillary clinton and huma abedin abuse secret service agents

Notable quotes:
"... Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws." ..."
"... The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold. ..."
"... There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. ..."
"... The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it." ..."
Jun 25, 2016 | breitbart.com

Ronald Kessler, writing for The Daily Mail, testifies that Hillary Clinton and her long-time aide Huma Abedin were detested by members of the Secret Service because the two women arrogantly treated the Secret Service agents like dirt.

Kessler, the author of The Secrets of the FBI and The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents, dismisses claims by members of the media that the current FBI investigation of Clinton is restricted to a "security investigation." He attests that the investigation of Clinton means that she violated criminal laws, as the FBI will not launch an investigation unless laws have been violated. Kessler points out that Clinton's protestations that the material under investigation was not marked classified is immaterial, writing, "The pertinent laws make no distinction between classified material that is marked as such or not. If material is classified and is handled improperly, that is a violation of criminal laws."

The FBI investigation has been galvanized further by recent revelations involving emails sent by Abedin and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, as well as the fact that State Department BlackBerry devices belonging to Abedin and Mills have likely been liquidated or sold.

Some of the anecdotes involving the imperiousness and haughtiness of Clinton and Abedin include:

In 2008, Abedin lost her way driving Chelsea Clinton to the February 2008 Democrat presidential debate in Los Angeles. One agent who tried to help Abedin recalled, "She was belligerent and angry about being late for the event, no appreciation for any of it, not a thank-you or anything. That was common for her people to be rude."

Another Los Angeles imbroglio occurred when Abedin, who was not wearing a pin certifying her identity, tried to bluster past a female Secret Service agent. The agent, unaware of Abedin's identity, said, "You don't have the proper identification to go beyond this point." Another agent told Kessler, "Huma basically tried to throw her weight around. She tried to just force her way through and said belligerently, 'Do you know who I am?''"

Kessler noted that Secret Service Agents are not required to carry luggage for their protectees, but they will if they like them. One agent recollected that, in Abedin's case, "The agents were just like, 'Hey, you're going to be like that? Well, you get your own luggage to the car. Oh, and by the way, you can carry the first lady's luggage to the car, too. She'd have four bags, and we'd stand there and watch her and say, 'Oh, can we hold the door open for you?'" The agent added, "When it's convenient for them, they'll utilize the service for whatever favor they need, but otherwise, they look down upon the agents, kind of like servants."

An agent who still works for the Secret Service asserted:

There's not an agent in the service who wants to be in Hillary's detail. If agents get the nod to go to her detail, that's considered a form of punishment among the agents. She's hard to work around, she's known to snap at agents and yell at agents and dress them down to their faces, and they just have to be humble and say, "Yes ma'am," and walk away. Agents don't deserve that. They're there to do a job, they're there to protect her, they'll lay their life down for hers, and there's absolutely no respect for that. And that's why agents do not want to go to her detail.

The most egregious example of Clinton's arrogance was evidenced in one particularly nasty incident when she was First Lady. One former agent related, "The first lady steps out of the limo, and another uniformed officer says to her, 'Good morning, ma'am.' Her response to him was 'F-- off.' I couldn't believe I heard it."

Hillary was famous for wanting the Secret Service to be invisible; one former agent said, "We were basically told, the Clintons don't want to see you, they don't want to hear you, get out of the way. Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions. Supervisors would tell us, 'Listen, stand behind this curtain. They're coming,' or 'Just stand out of the way, don't be seen.'"

Hillary berated a White House electrician changing a light bulb, screaming that he should have waited until the First Family was gone. Franette McCulloch, the assistant White House pastry chief at the time, remembered, "He was a basket case."

FBI agent Coy Copeland told Kessler that Hillary had a "standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another."

One agent was abused by Hillary during the Kenneth Starr investigation of the Whitewater scandal; he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," and she ranted, "How dare you? You people are just destroying my husband… And where do you buy your suits? Penney's?"

Weeks later, the agent confessed to Copeland, "I was wearing the best suit I owned."

[Sep 04, 2016] Under my definiton of sociopath , Hillary Clinton qualifies on just her laugh about death Muammar Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet

Notable quotes:
"... As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction? ..."
"... "We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap. ..."
"... Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton. ..."
Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

Zachary Smith / August 30, 2016 2:24 p.m.

As part of the murder process of Muammar Gaddafi, he was sodomized with a bayonet. Out of respect for any children reading this blog, I'm not going to spell that out any further. What was Hillary's RECORDED reaction?

"We came, we saw, he died," followed by a laugh and gleeful hand clap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

Under my definiton of "sociopath", Hillary Clinton qualifies on that one alone. Of course there are others….

*** My father, too, turned bribes into gifts. ***

I know some saintly people myself, and have no difficulty accepting this claim at face value. Stretching the analogy to the Clinton Foundation is, in my opinion, a stretch too far. If Hillary was as pure as the driven snow, why did she work so hard to ensure her communications were beyond the reach of the Freedom Of Information Act? Why has the State department refused to release her meeting schedules until after the election?

Finally, using Richard Cohen as an source for anything is beyond the pale. This shill for Israel was all-in for the destruction of Iraq. He was a big fan of the destruction of Libya. He's a huge booster for the destruction of Syria. And he most definitely wants somebody in the White House who will finish off Iran. That person is Hillary Clinton.

Beware the bullying female boss

Independent

More than half of the bullies reported to a new national helpline are women - and most of the victims are other women.

The data from the line also reveal that white-collar bullying among professional and office workers is far more common than among shopfloor workers. Nine out of 10 calls involved office-based workers. The public sector accounts for more than half the calls, with one in five complainants working in the caring agencies, the NHS or social services. "Workplace bullying among women is increasing, partly because they are occupying more senior positions," said Tim Field, an Oxford counsellor who runs anti-bullying workshops. "Women when they are bullies tend to be more manipulative and divisive, whereas men in the same situation are more overtly hostile. Women also tend to leave less evidence about their bullying activities. "In around 10 per cent of the cases dealt with by the advice line, suicide had been contemplated. Eight cases involved actual suicide." Elaine Bennett, a director of the Andrea Adams charity which was set up to tackle bullying, believes that the increase is probably in areas where women have not been in positions of power before. "Where women have been at the top for a long time, as in health and education, you do get the tyrant matrons and headmistresses." She says that in some cases women moving into management jobs are copying the male managers who held the job before them. "Women who are finding themselves in roles which hitherto have not been held by a woman - maybe they are the first one on to the board or to be a senior manager - may well take on some of the traits of male managers with much more of a macho aggressive culture," she said. National Workplace Bullying Advice Line: 01235-834548

Women vs men boss

Posted by: straightshooter
Date: 12/9/2005 8:28:24 AM

I would like to hear some comments on female vs male bossology.I personally am a female and I find male bosses to be better in many ways - they are fairer, do not cultivate "pets", do not gossip much, are more performance oriented and do not tend to micromanage unless they are control freaks (which I have not had). On the contrary, female bosses have overblown egos, are extremely sensitive to gossip and negative comments about their personae, are pathologically jealous and create an atmosphere of "girliness" - I had one colleague send our female boss Valentine cards and gifts. They are also more vindictive and even cruel (some cases relate to personal health issues and family matters).

My boss, the bitch

theage.com.au

It's a little-known fact that a woman can be as severe a bully in the workplace as a man, and according to experts, such behaviour among women is increasing.

Melbourne psychologist Evelyn Field says women bully just as much as men do, "but because more bullies are managers and more managers are male, more bullying is done by men. But you certainly get a lot of bullying from women and sometimes they behave more aggressively than males."

... ... ...

"Women will copy the patterns and behaviours of males, so that they become really quite aggressive," Field says.

Prominent British anti-bullying campaigner Tim Field said that at least half of 3000 bullying reports made to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line involved a female serial bully (who had bullied several co-workers). No such figures exist on the gender of Australian workplace bullies, but local experts estimate Australian figures would reflect Britain's.

In 2001-02, 1148 claims of workplace bullying were reported to the Victorian WorkCover Authority, compared with 1107 in the previous year.

In her recently released book, Catfight, which explores female competitiveness, US author Leora Tanenbaum found that "working women are expected to be aggressive and masculine. Worried about being perceived as a mediocre or incompetent worker, many women go out of their way to prove they are not too emotional or passive, and can be more aggressive and demanding than any man."

She points to groundbreaking research undertaken in the '70s, which she says is still relevant today. The researchers — psychologists Graham Staines, Carol Tavrid and Toby Epstein Jayaratne — coined the term "Queen Bee" to describe a token woman at a high level in a corporate environment.

Based on questionnaire responses from 20,000 women, they found that "the Queen Bee who is successful in a male-dominated field identifies with the male colleagues who are her reference group, rather than with the diffuse concept of women as a class . . . (she) thereby disassociates herself from the fundamental issues of equality for women, while reassuring her male colleagues that she is not of that militant ilk."

Tanenbaum also found that professional women were often hardest on their own sex.

"Many professional women confess they prefer male rather than female supervisors. They complain that women at work refuse to share power, or withhold information, or are too concerned about receiving credit for every little thing they accomplish, or are cold toward underlings (male and female alike). In such complaints they use the word 'bitch' a lot," she says.

Tim Field believes the stereotypical view of men as aggressive and women as nurturing often prevents the female serial bully from being seen for what she is: "A sociopath in a skirt."

... ... .,.

Evelyn Field said female bullies were often more subtle in their behaviour than their male counterparts. "Women are usually less physical, they would use techniques such as excluding others, over-supervising and controlling and verbal abuse."

Ricky Nowak, a workplace communications training specialist and head of the company, Confident Communications, says women's bullying is "often quieter, behind closed doors, over the phone, via curt emails, or through giving their staff a sense of . . . (being overwhelmed), for example: asking women with families to stay behind when they don't really have to do so."

Nowak runs leadership groups for professional women and says she has had many disclosures from women admitting they had bullied their colleagues.

"It was behaviour such as intimidating others, standing over them, giving colleagues the silent treatment and so on."

Evelyn Field describes bullying as a problem for everyone. "The micro level is the individual target who can be affected emotionally, physically, socially, career-wise, financially, family-wise over a long-term basis and many of them have severe health problems," she says.

"The onlookers also get affected — 20 per cent of onlookers will leave the job, others will have sick days and suffer poor morale. And the cost to industry is enormous — bullying is everyone's problem."

Sub-Sociopaths and Sub-Psychopath Types

The sociopath (Female): Using her false mask, this charming individual plays the helpless or needy, pitiful, inept or emotionally unable to cope. Even total strangers give her things she gratefully accepts. Falsely claiming to be the victim, this passive parasite lures and abuses the normal protector/provider instincts in her male target. When her mask comes off she is cunning, ruthless, predatory, and loveless.

Treatment of such case: This 'damsel in distress' will try to hook and reel you in. Take the hook out of your lip. Don't make her emotional neediness your problem. This black hole of need can never be filled. Understand the mask of helplessness is not the "real her". If she won't give reasonable answers to reasonable questions turn and leave. Beware and remember the sociopath is deadlier than the male as she uses sexuality as a lure. Avoid financial or emotional involvement.

The Deceptive Sociopath (Male or Female): They will lie for no reason. They will skilfully twist your words, evade questions, and omit important facts in their ever-changing, self-serving goals. This hypocrite claims high morals then proceeds to exploit, manipulate and abuse others. He will accuse you of being crazy and emotionally cruel.

Treatment of such case: Quietly verify what they say. Do not try to negotiate or bargain. If they have been caught out on their lies too many times, leave them.

Frictional Sociopath (Male or Female): puts people against each other. Victims may be used as their proxy interacting with others as they set victims up to take the fall while they enjoy watching the performance they orchestrates. They keep their allies and targets separate to avoid exposure. Verbally skilled at twisting people’s words, this charmer usually gets their way. Applying 'fear' selling tactics, faking expertise, this scam artist crafts situations to appear indispensable, ready to solve our problems. Money and conning others are their objective. They will agree to anything then turn around and do the opposite. They will accuse you of breaking the contract. Legal, custody agreements and normal social or personal protocol mean nothing to them. They enjoy playing the role of the victim.

Treatment of such case: Expect them to disregard the agreement. Avoid involvement. Be self-sufficient. Avoid any "Trust-Me" get-rich-quick sales pitches. Learn how swindlers and scam artists operate.

Sociopaths-psychopaths and violence

If he's not physically violent, he may be a bully. And, keep in mind that aggression is not limited to men—sociopaths can also be violent.

Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy and Psychopathy

The main characteristic of it is a complete and utter disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society. They seldom show anxiety and don't feel guilt. Although many people would hope that there's an effective treatment, there's really no effective treatment for them other than locking them up in a secure facility with such rigid rules that they cannot talk their way out. A full list of APD traits would include:

List of Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits Sense of entitlement; Unremorseful; Apathetic to others; Unconscionable behavior; Blameful of others; Manipulative and conning; Affectively cold; Disparate understanding; Socially irresponsible; Disregardful of obligations; Nonconforming to norms; Irresponsible

whereas the DSM-IV "clinical" features of Antisocial Personality Disorder (with a person having at least three of these characteristics) are:

Clinical Symptoms for an Antisocial Personality Disorder Diagnosis

1. Failure to conform to social norms; 2. Deceitfulness, manipulativeness; 3. Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead; 4. Irritability, aggressiveness; 5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others; 6. Consistent irresponsibility; 7. Lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person

Sociopathy is chiefly characterized by something wrong with the person's conscience. They either don't have one, it's full of holes like Swiss cheese, or they are somehow able to completely neutralize or negate any sense of conscience or future time perspective. Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme. Everything and everybody else is mentally twisted around in their minds as objects to be used in fulfilling their own needs and desires. They often believe they are doing something good for society, or at least nothing that bad. The term "sociopath" is frequently used by psychologists and sociologists alike in referring to persons whose unsocialized character is due primarily to parental failures (usually fatherlessness) rather than an inherent feature of temperament. Lykken (1995), for example, clearly distinguishes between the sociopath (who is socialized into becoming a psychopath) and a "true" psychopath (who is born that way). However, this may only describe the "common sociopath", as there are at least four (4) different subtypes -- common, alienated, aggressive, and dyssocial. Commons are characterized mostly by their lack of conscience; the alienated by their inability to love or be loved; aggressives by a consistent sadistic streak; and dyssocials by an ability to abide by gang rules, as long as those rules are the wrong rules. As Stout (2005) indicates, it only takes three of the following to be defined as a sociopath, and some common sociopathic traits include:

List of Common Sociopathic Traits

Egocentricity; Callousness; Impulsivity; Conscience defect; Exaggerated sexuality; Excessive boasting; Risk taking; Inability to resist temptation; Antagonistic, deprecating attitude toward the opposite sex; Lack of interest in bonding with a mate

Debates98 Mealey Sociopathy Article (Quote-Comment-Ready)

From: HARNAD Stevan (harnad@coglit.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 13 1998 - 20:25:44 BST

THE SOCIOBIOLOGY OF SOCIOPATHY: AN INTEGRATED EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

Linda Mealey

Review of some sociobiological concepts:

(1) Today's Environment vs. the "Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness" (EEA) IN which, and FOR which we evolved

(2) Distal (EEA/evolutionary) causes and Proximal (current, psychological) causes

(3) Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESSs) and Dynamic Equilibria: Some genetically coded strategies are "stable," in that they cannot be bettered by other strategies; unstable ones can be. e.g. green gene for relatedness "Help me, I'm kin!"

most of us cannot fathom the cold, detached way sociopaths repeatedly harm and manipulate others.

behavior genetics, child development, personality theory, learning theory, and social psychology describe a complex interaction of genetic and physiological risk factors with demographic and micro-environmental variables that predispose a portion of the population to chronic antisocial behavior.

Recent evolutionary and game theoretic models explain sociopathy as a frequency-dependent life history strategy selected in response to certain varying environmental circumstances.

Two developmentally different kinds of sociopathy emerge from two different evolutionary mechanisms.

Social policies should consider the two different kinds of sociopathy and the factors which contribute to them.

Sociopaths, 3-4% of the male population and less than 1% of the female
population and 33% - 80% of chronic criminal offenders

commit over 50% of all crimes in the U.S.

also irresponsible and unreliable behavior:

egocentrism,

inability to form lasting personal commitments

impulsivity.

superficial veneer of sociability and charm

lack of social emotions (love, shame, guilt, empathy, and remorse)

not intellectually handicapped: "Con-men," able to deceive and manipulate others through elaborate scams and ruses including fraud, bigamy, embezzlement, and other crimes which rely on the trust and cooperation

"aware of the discrepancy between his behavior and societal expectations, but he seems to be neither guided by the possibility of such a discrepancy, nor disturbed by its occurrence"

cold- hearted and selfish "moral insanity"

also sometimes known as psychopaths or antisocial personalities

"antisocial personality" disorder traits found in a continuous, normal
distribution in the population at large

defined by high scores on all three Eysenck Personality scales: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism

distinction between "simple" and "hostile" or "primary" and "secondary"
psychopaths or sociopaths

"simple" or "primary" sociopaths complete lack of the social emotions

"hostile" or "secondary" ones exhibit antisocial behavior without this
emotional deficit are

distinction is an important one because there are two different paths to sociopathy, with different implications for prevention and treatment.

sociopaths are designed for successful social deception and are a type
that evolved biologically to practice a strategy of manipulative and predatory social interactions.

this strategy is to be expected in the low frequencies we see It is also expected to appear preferentially under certain social, environmental, and developmental circumstances which I hope to delineate.

(1) ta genetic predisposition underlies sociopathy, normally distributed in the population

(2) because of selection to fill a small niche, a small, fixed percentage of those at the extreme of this continuum will be deemed "morally insane" in any culture

(3) a variable percentage of individuals who are less extreme on the continuum will sometimes, in response to environmental conditions during their early development, pursue a life-history strategy that is similar to that of their "morally insane"

(4) this underlying genetic continuum is evident in many of us when immediate environmental circumstances make an antisocial strategy more profitable than a prosocial one.

1. The Model:

1.1 The evolutionary role of emotion

almost defining characteristic of sociopaths is their apparent lack of
sincere social emotions

Plutchik (1980) posits eight "primary" emotions (such as fear, anger and disgust) related to survival that everyone (including sociopaths) experiences

the "secondary" or social emotions (such as shame, guilt, sympathy, and
love) depend partly on learning and socializationm and can vary across individuals and cultures

outward expression of emotion will serve as a reliable indicator to others as to how a person is likely to behave in the future.

Nesse: Prisoner's Dilemma: when both players cooperate, they experience
friendship, love, obligation, or pride; when both cheat or defect, they feel rejection and hatred; when one player cooperates and the other defects, the cooperator feels anger while the defector feels anxiety and guilt.

if, as in the Prisoner's Dilemma, the most rational strategy is to be selfish and defect, why should positive (reinforcing) emotions follow mutual cooperation rather than defection? "reputation"

no rational player will play with a known defector; to avoid this social "shunning" based on reputation players must build a reputation for cooperation, despite the fact that cooperation is not the "rational" choice for the short-term.

social emotions evolved as "commitment devices" (Frank) or "guarantors
of threats and promises" (Hirshleifer)causing positive or negative feelings that act as reinforces or punishers

not economically rational for the short-term but profitable and adaptive in situations where encounters are frequent and reputation is important.

Once such communicative mechanisms have evolved... become vulnerable to
deception... and can lead to a coevolutionary "arms race": finely tuned sensitivities for deception plus equally fine-tuned abilities to hide them.

some sort of statistical equilibrium will be approached. Cheating maintained as a low-level frequency-dependent strategy, in dynamic equilibrium; modelled extensively by evolutionary biologists

1.2 Game theory and evolutionarily stable strategies

Richard Lewontin (1961) John Maynard Smith 1973

maintenance of mixed ESSs

(1) one genotype always uses the same strategy in every situation

(2) every individual uses the same statistical mix of strategies, but randomly

(3) every individual uses every strategy, but predictably according to
circumstances)

(4) each individual can at birth use any strategy, but "imprints" early
on only a few

(5) different genotypes respond differently to same stimuli during development

sociopaths are a type of cheater- defector in our society of mixed-strategy interactionists.

sociopathy appears in two forms: "primary sociopath" results from frequency-dependent genetic differences in using one (antisocial) strategy

"secondary sociopathy" differences in developmental response to the environment produce differences in using cooperative or deceptive social strategies 2. The Evidence:

2.1 Behavior genetics

criminals and sociopaths, share a variety of characteristics

both criminality and sociopathy have a substantial, overlapping heritable component

2.1.1 Studies of criminal behavior

twin and adp[tion studies suggest heritability of .60 for repeated commission of crimes of property.

significant interactive effects: adoptive children with both a genetic
risk (criminal biological parent) and an environmental risk (criminality, psychiatric illness, or other severe behavioral disturbance in an adoptive parent), have a far greater risk than with no such risk or only one risk factor, and that increased risk is more than simply an additive effect of both risk factors.

females are more likely to transmit a genetic risk to their offspring than are males.

2.1.2 Studies of sociopathy

substantial heritability to sociopathy; gene-environment interaction similar to the one found for criminal behavior

male adoptees sensitive to influence of environmental risk factors than
female adoptees.

suggests a multifactorial, probably polygenic, basis for sociopathy

2.1.3 Sex differences and the "two-threshold" model

Cloninger "two threshold" polygenic model; sociopaths are on the extreme end of a normal distribution whose genetic component is (1) polygenic and (2) to a large degree, sex-limited.

[Sex-limited genes, not to be confused with sex-linked genes, are triggered only within the chemical/hormonal microenvironment of one sex or the other e.g., beard and mustache growth in men, and breast and hip development in women.]

If many genes underlying sociopathy are triggered by testosterone, many
more men than women will pass the threshold

females who do express the trait are further out in the extreme of the
normal distribution of genotypes than most of the males who express the trait.

greater overall risk for males as opposed to females

greater risk for the offspring (and other relatives) of sociopaths

males will express sociopathy at a lower "genetic dose" than females, but heritability is greater for females, hence the environmental component of the variance is greater for males

males are more susceptible to the environmental conditions of their early years; greater variance in male reproductive capacity makes their "choice" of life strategy more risky and so more subject to selective pressures

males should be more sensitive to environmental cues that (1) trigger environmental or developmental life history strategies or (2) are stimuli for which genetic differences in response thresholds have evolved.

when would sociopathy be the best available strategy? what would be the
environmental cues which, especially for boys, would trigger its development?

2.2 Child psychology

2.2.1 Life history strategies

those least likely to outcompete other males in a status hierarchy, or
to find mates through female choice are most likely to adopt a cheating strategy; competitive disadvantage could be related to age, health, physical attractiveness, intelligence, socioeconomic status, and social skills.

overlaps between rape, battering, and criminality in terms of life history circumstances, genetics, and apparent inability to empathize with victim, suggest sociopathy spectrum.

genetically influenced, developmentally- and environmentally-contingent
cheating strategies used when a male finds himself at a competitive disadvantage

sexual opportunism and manipulation are key features of sociopath and guided the evolution of sociopathy.

Briquet's Hysteria in women -- syndrome of promiscuity, fatalistic dependency, and attention- getting-- may be female homologue of male sociopathy.

2.2.2 Delinquency

two subtypes of conduct disorder in children: "solitary aggressive type" and "group type"; "versatiles" and "property offenders"; "unsocialized" and "socialized" lead to primary vs secondary sociopathy

two different evolutionary mechanisms for maintaining ESSs in a population

juvenile antisocial behavior is the best predictor of adult antisocial
behavior, the earlier, the stronger

mean age at which adult sociopaths exhibited first significant symptom:
8-10; 80% by age 11; 2/3 distinuishable from other children by kindergarten

several relevant environmental factors: inconsistent discipline, punishment as opposed to rewards, disrupted family life (especially father absence, family violence, alcoholic parent, or mentally ill parent), and low socioeconomic status

factors more when one or the other parent is sociopathic; antisocial behaviors can be reinforced under such living conditions.

correlates of delinquency in girls same as for boys: (1) history of antisocial behavior throughout childhood and a tendency to seek out delinquent peers; leads to persisten antisocial behavior in adulthood. (2) few behavior problems in childhood but more and more antisocial behaviors from menarche.

2.2.3 Moral development

very young children are biologically prepared to learn moral behavior,
selectively attentive to emotions, especially distress, in others; learn to exhibit prosocial behavior long before they are able to conceptualize its effect on others.

motivation behind early prosocial behavior is the (egocentric) need to
reduce one's own aversive feelings of arousal and distress.

high arousal levels associated with low cheating levels

the child must pass from empathic responses to sympathetic responses --
some time during the second year when beginning to develop "theory of mind"

evolved in humans for predicting the behavior of others.

can one be successful using only the cognitive tool of a theory of mind, without access to emotional, empathic information which, presumably, sociopaths lack?

2.3 Personality theory

What is it that makes "high risk" environmental features particularly salient for those who have the predisposing genotype?

2.3.1 The role of gene-environment interactions

most important environmental factors that influence personal development are not those that are shared by siblings within a family (such as parenting style, socioeconomic status, and schooling), but idiosyncratic events and relationships difficult to study systematically with traditional methods.

Despite a shared home, children will encounter different microenvironments: relationships with parents will differ, and their day to day experiences will not overlap significantly.

any two children will experience an (objectively) identical environment
in different ways

A primary sociopaths are unresponsive to the environmental cues of normal socialization and moral development and seek the more deviant and arousing stimuli within the environment.

Secondary sociopaths, not as genetically predisposed, are more responsive to environmental cues and risk factors.

What constitutional factors place some individuals at high risk?

2.3.2 The role of temperament

substantial heritability of self-reported measures of altruism, nurturance, aggressiveness, and empathy. Sex differences.

Aespecially for males, the inherited factors correlated with genetic risk of delinquency are the same as those that lead to the temperamental attributes of anger, impulsivity, and deceitfulness ("self-serving dishonesty with people with whom a person ordinarily has affectional bonds")

two possible routes to sociopathy or criminality, one primarily heritable and one less so that sets stage for developmentally- and environmentally-contingent individual differences in antisocial behavior.

sociopathy and antisocial behavior correlated with high scores on all three of the major personality dimensions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: 'extraversion' (contra introversion), 'neuroticism' (contra emotional stability), and 'psychoticism' (contra fluid and efficient superego functioning- not synonymous with psychotic mental illness; this scale would be better called 'psychopathy'). All three high heritability, psychoticism typically much higher in males

"General Arousal Theory of Criminality": inheritance of a nervous system relatively insensitive to low levels of stimulation. extraverted, impulsive, and sensation-seeking, because under low stimulation they feel a suboptimal level of arousal; to increase their arousal, many will participate in high-risk activities such as crime

criminality and sociopathy associated indicators of suboptimal arousal,
including childhood hyperactivity, recreational drug use, risk-taking, failure to persist on tasks, and preference for wide-ranging sexual activity.

In addition to seeking thrill and novelty, sensation-seekers describe "hedonistic pursuit of pleasure through extraverted activities including social drinking, parties, sex, and gambling", "aversion to routine activities or work and to dull and boring people", and "restlessness in an unchanging environment"

In college students, sensation-seeking is correlated with the Pd (Psychopathic Deviate) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and among prisoners it can be used to distinguish primary psychopaths from secondary psychopaths and non-psychopathic criminals

appears early (3-4 years), high heritability, correlates negatively with age in adults, higher in males.

Gray renamed Eysenck factors: the approach, or, behavioral activation system, the behavioral inhibition system, and the fight/flight system;

Cloninger: "novelty-seeking", "harm- avoidance", and "reward-dependence":

2.3.3 The role of physiology

hign dopamine for behavioral activation (or novelty-seeking),

low serotonin for behavioral inhibition (or harm avoidance),

low norepinephrine for fight/flight (or reward dependence)

extraverts and sociopaths show less physiological arousal than introverts and normals in response to threats of pain or punishment and more tolerance of actual pain or punishment; delinquents have lower baseline heart rate than nondelinquents.

causes, not just correlates; predict later levels of antisocial behavior

Testosterone is likely trigger of the sex-limited activation of genes in the two-threshold model

steroid hormones enter the nucleus and interact with the chromosomes,
regulating gene expression. This leads to some of the individual, age, and sex differences in temperament: psychoticism, aggression, impulsivity, sensation-seeking, nurturance, and empathy

Variation in testosterone levels also parallels age variation in sociopathic behavior and is correlated with such behavior in adolescent and adult males

Testosterone is likely to play dual role in the development of sociopathy, as it does in the development of other sex differences: one as an organizer (affecting traits) and one as an activator (affecting states).

boys with high T mature faster, get bigger, more likely to get in fights: creates positive feedback loop: those who start out with high T and sensation seeking (and low adrenaline, serotonin, and MAO) more likely to initiate aggression and to succeed in dominance interactions, leading to increases in T, further increases in aggressive behavior.

significant correlations between T and antisocial behavior in lower class men only; upper class men, because of differential socialization, avoid individual confrontations, which might raise their T (and antisocial behavior).

fewer upper class than lower class men had high T levels; upper class socialization may mitigate influence of T. alternative: aggressive behavior with higher T levels leads to downward social mobility

Because upper class children have less environmental risks, their sociopathic behavior comes from stronger genetic predisposition, hence (1) the effect of the social environment might be larger than suggested by adoption studies, and (2) different pathways to sociopathy, need different strategies for prevention or remediation

2.4 Learning Theory

1. Conditioning

hypoaroused nervous system less sensitive to the emotional expression of other individuals, and to social influences in general, also less responsive to reinforcement and punishment, hence handicapped in learning through autonomic conditioning

difficulty inhibiting behavior when both reward and punishment are possible outcomes

in situations when most people would experience an approach-avoidance conflict, sociopaths and extraverts are more likely to approach

Because of high sensation-seeking, children with a hypoaroused nervous
system more likely to get into trouble, less likely to be affected by, and learn from, consequences of their behavior or parental punishment.

Primary sociopaths, unable to experience the social emotions, exhibit deficits on tasks which induce anxiety in others: passive avoidance, approach-avoidance, and tasks involving punishment; but they can learn well under other conditions

Secondary sociopaths and extraverts, have normal anxiety and responses
to punishment, but may be especially driven by high reward conditions

Primary sociopaths, with diminished anxiety and conditioned associations between antisocial behavior and punishment, unable to progress through the normal stages of moral development.

Unlike most children who are biologically prepared to learn empathy, they are contraprepared to do so, and remain egoistic- unable to acquire the social emotions of empathy, shame, guilt, and love

present at early age with "unsocialized" conduct disorder

Secondary sociopaths, with normal emotional capacities present at later
age with "socialized" conduct disorder

What socialization processes contribute to their development?

2.4.2 Social learning

cheating strategy is predicted to develop when a male (especially) is competitively disadvantaged, and criminal behavior (especially in males)

related to disadvantage in a two-stage process involving a variety of cumulative risk factors:

first stage: disrupted family life, parental neglect, abuse, inconsistent discipline, punishment as opposed to rewards, inconsistent feedback, and poor models of prosocial behavior.

pattern most common in parents who are criminal, mentally disturbed, undereducated, of low intelligence, or socioeconomically deprived leading to a cross-generation cycle of increasing family dysfunction

second stage: children with poor social skills disadvantaged in interactions with age-mates; rejected by popular children, consort with one another; then antisocial then escalates .

secondary sociopathy depend more upon environmental factors than primary.

2.5 Social Psychology

2.5.1 Machiavellianism

antisocial strategies not restricted to sociopaths.

majority of people arrested not sociopathic; many people antisocial behavior rarely enough or inoffensively enough to preclude arrest.

Some antisocial behavior is even considered acceptable: entrepreneuris, people who seek to control and manipulate others often become lawyers, psychiatrists, or behavioral scientists; "subtle, cynical selfishness with a veneer of social skills is common among scientists"

"Machiavellianism" or "Mach" scale: agreement or disagreement with statements like "Humility not only is of no service but is actually harmful," "Nature has so created men that they desire everything but are unable to attain it," and "The most important thing in life is winning".

Adults high on the Mach scale express "a relative lack of affect in interpersonal relationships," "a lack of concern with conventional morality," "a lack of gross psychopathology," and "low ideological commitment"; children high on Machiavellianism have lower levels of empathy than age-mates

High Machs have "instrumental cognitive attitude toward others", goal-oriented as opposed to person-oriented, more successful in face-to-face bargaining situations, "are especially able communicators, regardless of the veracity of their message", more resistant to confession after cheating, more plausible liars, like sociopaths, high Machs are often referred to as "cool".

"self-initiated manipulation of others" Mach may be low-level manifestation of sociopathy. sex difference consistent with the two-threshold model, consistent with age variation in testosterone levels, correlations with Eysenck's psychoticism and neuroticism scales and with serotonin levels

high Machs "impersonal, cognitive, rational, cool" approach with others, than low Machs "more personal, empathizing" approach); High Machs more accurate at assessing how other "target" individuals answered a Machiavellian attitudes questionnaire, using a statistical strategy, assuming everyone was about average;

hypoaroused and antisocial individuals are less attentive to social and
emotional cues than others.

Low Machs "projected," successfully differentiated between high and low
Mach, underestimated the scores of both, guessing at a level reflective of their own scores

(1) "impersonal, cognitive, rational, cool" approach to others might be
more accurate in the long run than "personal, empathizing" approach (where cooperative long-term partnerships are not possible); and

(2) errors of empathizing approach like playing the cooperation strategy when the cheating strategy would be more appropriate, makes one susceptible to being exploited by others who use the impersonal cognitive approach; high Machs outcompete low Machs in most experimental competitive situations

assumption that empathy-based approach to predicting the behavior of others is better than a statistical approach not necessarily correct; may be an emotion-based cognitive bias.

but low Machs would be more successful than high Machs in selecting a cooperator as a partner.

Machiavellianism is a trait or the underlying variation in personality
and the situational factors relevant to an individual's behavior at any given momen.

what can social psychology tell us about the within-individual situational factors which encourage or discourage cheating strategies?

2.5.2 The role of mood

Mood varies within individuals but less an immediate response to events
and more a generalized response to the environment

Positive mood and feelings of success enhance cooperative behavior. part of a long-term strategy by individuals who feel they can afford to pass up short-term gains to establish a cooperative reputation.

When sadness and feelings of failure follow losses, individuals likely
to be egoistic and selfish. In children typically found but in some children, and more in adults, sadness and feelings of failure can facilitate prosocial behavior. a deliberate effort to enhance one's (diminished) reputation among others; prosocial behavior often has a positive, gratifying effect.

If one is depressed,neither antisocial nor prosocial, but asocial. lethargy and anhedonia of depression

aggressiveness in boys is associated with the over-attribution of hostile intent to others. lead to increased "retaliatory" aggression, fueling cycle.

Guilt, often follows selfish behavior, increases subsequent prosocial behavior to reestablish reputation.

guilt, anxiety and sympathy are social emotions that primary sociopaths
rarelyexperience, so do not moderate their behavior to avoid them. sociopaths do experience fluctuations in mood (depression, optimism, or anger) in response to their changing evaluation of their chance of success and failure. If we can manipulate the sociopath's mood, can influence his behavior.

2.5.3 Cultural variables

Competition increases use of antisocial and Machiavellian strategies and can counteract increase in prosocial behavior after success. high competitiveness: high crime rates and Machiavellianism

High population density also associated with reduced prosocial and increased antisocial behavior especially in males

Based on models of kin selection and inclusive fitness, individuals should be more cooperative and less deceptive when interacting with relatives who share their genes, or relatives who share investment in common descendents.

identical twins cooperate more than fraternal twins in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

more altruistic responses on altruism questionnaire questions refer to
relatives, Machiavellian responses reduced.

people cooperate more with others who are similar to them even though not genetically related.

3. Integration, Implications, and Conclusions:

3.1 Integration: Sociopathy as an ESS leads to two types of sociopaths

3.1.1 Primary sociopathy

genotype results in a certain inborn temperament coupled with a pattern
of autonomic hypoarousal that make child tunresponsive to cues of normal socialization and moral development.

mechanism 1 (Section 1.2) of maintaining ESSs in the population;

frequency-dependent, genetic differences in life history strategies.

there will always be a small, cross-culturally similar, baseline frequency of sociopaths;

will display chronic, pathologically emotionless antisocial behavior throughout most of their lifespan and across a variety of situations;

should be equally likely to come from all kinds of socio-economic backgrounds but because impervious to the social environment almost all sociopaths from the upper-classes will be primary

not intellectually handicapped; will progress normally and acquire a theory of mind, but will be formulated purely in instrumental terms, without empathic understanding ;

may become excellent predictors of others' behavior, unhandicapped by emotion, acting, like professional gamblers, solely on statistical data rather than on hunches and feelings.

will use a pure cost-benefit approach based on immediate personal outcomes, with no "accounting" for the emotional reactions of the others with whom they are dealing. Without love to "commit" them to cooperation, anxiety to prevent "defection", or guilt to inspire repentance, they will remain free to continually play for the short- term benefit in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

3.1.2 Secondary sociopathy

an additional, fluctuating proportion of sociopathy allowing more flexibility to the general population to track the frequency-dependent nature of the success of the cheating strategy. M

Secondary sociopaths not extreme on the genetic sociopathy spectrum but because of exposure to environmental risk factors, frequent, but not necessarily emotionless cheating. Unlike primary sociopaths, secondary sociopaths will not necessarily exhibit chronic antisocial behavior; their strategy choices will be more closely tied to age, fluctuation in hormone levels, their competitive status within their referent group, and changing environmental contingencies.

more closely tied to environmental factors than to genetic factors, secondary sociopaths will almost always come from lower class backgrounds and their numbers could vary substantially across cultures and time, tracking environmental conditions favoring or disfavoring the use of cheating strategies.

(!) explains why cultural differences are correlated with differences in the overall incidence of antisocial behavior, and why the discrepancy in the ratio of male to sociopaths decreases as overall incidence of sociopathy increases: since secondary sociopathy is less heritable than primary sociopathy, the effect of sex-limited genes less important for the development of secondary sociopathy, resulting in less of a sex difference.

3.2 Implications of the two-pathways model

Since primary sociopaths have a deficit in the realm of emotional motivation, presumably act primarily upon their cognitive expectations of others; to the extent that they do act upon emotions, it is most likely to be upon mood and the primary emotions (like anger and fear) rather than upon the social and secondary emotions (like love and anxiety).

extent to which a society will be able to diminish the antisocial behavior of primary sociopaths will depend upon (1) its influence on the sociopath's cognitive evaluation of society's own reputation as a player in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and (2) the primary emotion- or mood-inducing capacity of the stimuli it utilizes in establishing the costs and benefits of prosocial versus antisocial behavior.

Manipulating these two variables will also influence the numbers of secondary sociopaths by changing the size of the adaptive niche associated with antisocial behavior.

since secondary sociopathy is more influenced by the social environment
and secondary sociopaths are not devoid of social emotions, changing patterns in the nurturing and socialization of children and in the socialization and rehabilitation of delinquents and adult criminals is another possibility (!)

3.2.1 Minimizing the impact of primary sociopaths: society as a player
in the Prisoner's Dilemma

an entire society can be seen as a player, and its past behavior will be used by the sociopath to predict the future behavior of that society.

Like an individual player, a society will have a certain probability of
detecting deception, a more-or-less accurate memory of who has cheated in the past, and a certain proclivity to retaliate or not, based upon a cheater's past reputation and current behavior.

sociopath uses statistical approach to assess costs and benefits of different behaviors, so actual past behavior of the society will go into his calculations, rather than risk assessments inflated from exaggerated fears or anxieties that most people feel in anticipation of being caught or punished.

(!) Thus, to reduce antisocial behavior, society must establish and enforce a reputation for high rates of detection of deception and identification of cheaters, and willingness to retaliate. In other words, it must establish a successful strategy of deterrence. [!]

as group size decreases, cooperation increases, also increases with probability of memory error or individual recognition, effect of a loss on a cooperator, effect of a gain on a defector, frequency of punishment against defectors, the cost of punishment

game-theoretic models provide useful strategies for prediction and reduction of cheating and antisocial behavior

increasing probability of detection, identification, and punishment, can reduce crime [!]

make costs of cheating salient, predictable, swift

sociopath will "compute" cost-benefit ratio of the alternatives; money
and other immediate tangible rewards more motivating than social reinforcers or promises of future payoff; visual stimuli more salient than auditory

alternatives to crime must be stimulating enough and rewarding enough to engage the chronically hypoaroused sensation-seeker. more successful if we distinguish primary from secondary sociopaths.

recidivism rates went up for psychopathsbut down for nonpsychopaths after the same kind of "treatment".

3.2.2 Minimizing the prevalence of secondary sociopathy: society as a socializing agent and mood setter

social changes to minimize impact and incidence of sociopathy.

parent training, modelling, induction, and behavioral modification

cause and effect relationship between parental behavior and child behavior, two-way.

agents should be individually matched with each client/offender based on style and personality characteristics, to prevent high Mach and sociopathic offenders from taking advantage of low Mach employees.

As society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian, leading to reductions in altruism and increases in crime. Social stratification and segregation also lead to feelings of inferiority, pessimism, and depression among the less privileged, which can in turn promote the use of alternative competitive strategies, including antisocial behavior

external locus of control, learned helplessness, reduced serotonin, increased aggression

"the vandal is a failed creative artist," a bored and frustrated sensation-seeker who "does not have the intellectual or other skills and capacities to amuse or occupy himself"

in addition to making the costs of antisocial behavior greater, providing early social support for those at risk, and developing alternative, nonexploitative, sensation-seeking ventures that can meet the psychological needs of disadvantaged and low-skill individuals.

3.3 Conclusions

(1) "Primary sociopaths" are a certain genotype incapable of experiencing the secondary, "social" emotions that normally contribute to behavioral motivation and inhibition; they fill the ecological niche for the "cheater strategy" found in low frequency in every society.

(1b) To minimize the damage caused by primary sociopaths, the criminal
justice system should reduce the benefits and increase the costs of antisocial behavior, while creating alternatives to crime which could satisfy the psychophysiological arousal needs of the sociopath.

(2) "Secondary sociopaths" use situation-dependent cheating strategies,
not as clearly tied to genotype, in response to disadvantages in social competition, varying with social circumstances.

(2b) To reduce secondary sociopathy, programs are needed to reduce social stratification, anonymity, and competition, intervene in high-risk settings with specialized parent education and support; and increase the availability of rewarding, prosocial opportunities for at-risk youth.

[Aug 30, 2016] So, Trumps crazy What about Hillary

Notable quotes:
"... compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury ..."
"... compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. ..."
"... "This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives." ..."
"... In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother." ..."
"... "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent." ..."
Aug 07, 2016 | www.wnd.com

Hillary Clinton has indeed become well known as a serial liar, as fully two-thirds of Americans, 68 percent in a recent poll, said she was neither honest nor trustworthy. Not only does Clinton lie to protect herself, as she has regarding Benghazi and her private email server, but she lies when there appears to be no benefit to doing so.

For example, she famously claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary for his conquering of Mt. Everest, even though that didn't happen until six years after Clinton was born. She also notoriously claim she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, when newspaper and video accounts revealed exactly the opposite.

"Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury," Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, told WND. "Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.

"This might explain Hillary's consistent unlikability factor, along with her consistent denial of lies, even in her lying about FBI Director Comey pointing out that she lied multiple times. Most of America believes her to be a liar, and yet she seems to have zero remorse, even and up to the point of costing American lives."

In addition to pathological lying, Clinton's temper has reportedly been a problem in the past. A former military K9 handler described how then-Secretary of State Clinton once flew into a blind rage, yelling "get that f**king dog away from me." She then berated her security detail for the next 20 minutes about why the dog was in her quarters. After Clinton left after slamming the door in their faces, the leader of the detail explained to the K9 handler, "Happens every day, brother."

These types of outbursts continued after Hillary left her office as secretary of state. An aide on her presidential campaign told the New York Post last October: "Hillary's been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work. She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she's become shrill and, at times, even violent."

[Aug 26, 2016] Rep. Gowdy Hillary Clinton is a 'habitual, serial liar'

Fox News Video

- 2:08 - Republican lawmaker questions absence of emails sent by secretary of state on foundation

[Aug 07, 2016] Is hillary a female phychopath

Notable quotes:
"... It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , August 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Sayyyyyy…..didn't someone here theorize, right after the news broke that the DNC's emails had been hacked, and Hillary blamed the Russians so people would forget what she and the rest of the coven did to Sanders, that the actual attacker was more likely someone much closer to home?

Enter the Disgruntled US Intelligence Worker . According to US government whistleblower William Binney, somebody in the NSA released Hillary's and the DNC's emails, infuriated at Teflon Hillary's non-stick escape from any accountability for her hijinks.

The headline suggests he knows, but the body of the story suggests he is just speculating, though. But it raises a valid point – the NSA probably has all those emails, including the 30,000 she deleted on the grounds that they were 'personal'.

Cortes , August 5, 2016 at 11:41 pm

The following piece by Andrew Napolitano speculates on what might have triggered a disgruntled NSA person to leak materials:

http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/lessons-from-the-deep-state/

At some point between now and November, is anyone in the media going to put the questions about the likelihood of NSA possession of, and therefore ease of FBI access thereto, the "missing" emails to Director Comey? Or will TPTB just smile grimly and pray no further leaks arrive to shatter the Narnian alternative reality world they inhabit?

marknesop , August 6, 2016 at 9:16 am

What an excellent article, quite a bit more authoritative than the one I cited although it helpfully offers the same source, and it shapes some more pieces of the puzzle which now make more sense. The compromising of intelligence personnels' identities was something that, to the best of my knowledge, was never discussed in any stories on her email peccadilloes. Intelligence agencies quite properly despise anyone who casually blows the cover of its operatives. It makes me wonder if we ought not to be discussing Clinton in the frame of "The Ego Candidate". It's tempting to characterize Trump for that label, given his boastfulness which does seem to be part of his character. But for all that, Trump comes across to me as mostly law-abiding, and someone who recognizes and observes limits. Clinton neither recognizes or observes anything of the kind, and she is limited only by what she cannot get away with.

Thanks for posting that revealing corroborative piece.

Recommended Links

Softpanorama hot topic of the month

Softpanorama Recommended

Films look to me no less education then books and web pages. They depict female bullies in action and allow you to watch from the safe distance some pretty realistic depiction of thier tricks and attack tactics:

Books



Etc

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit exclusivly for research and educational purposes.   If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 

ABUSE: IPs or network segments from which we detect a stream of probes might be blocked for no less then 90 days. Multiple types of probes increase this period.  

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least


Copyright © 1996-2016 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.

The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.

Last modified: May, 21, 2017