Why isn’t everyone on “the right” desperate to see Hillary lose?

This is from Mark Steyn: Laws are for the Little People.

Like everything else the Clintons touch, Comey’s FBI is hopelessly corrupted – and certainly more corrupt than J Edgar Hoover’s FBI, at least in the sense that Hoover was independent enough not to get rolled. The revelations of what happened reveal Comey to be a hack and a squish: he offered immunity to Hillary’s aides not to facilitate his investigation but to obstruct any further investigation; he allowed witnesses to Hillary’s crimes to serve as her “lawyers”; and he physically destroyed the evidence – that is, the laptops. A 6′ 8″ gummi worm would be more of a straight arrow.

Now come the latest revelations. Powerline’s John Hinderaker writes:

In the first page, an unidentified FBI employee says he was “pressured” to change the classification of an email to render it unclassified. This pressure came from someone within the FBI, who said he had been contacted by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who “had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.'” The quid pro quo was that, if the FBI would say the email was unclassified, the State Department would allow the FBI to “place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”

So, to add to the corrupt revenue agency and the corrupt justice department, we now have a corrupt national law enforcement agency and a corrupt foreign ministry – willing, indeed, to subordinate national security and its own diplomatic policy to the personal needs of Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc, etc, you will be entirely unaware of all this. Which is the way they plan on operating for the next eight years.

A small but telling point: Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

And, should she win, I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat. It would be futile to do anything else.

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Why isn’t everyone on “the right” desperate to see Hillary lose?

  1. the not very bright Marcus

    If she wins we will have to move this site to the darknet ….I always admired those French resistance operatives on Hogan’s heroes we shall all have to become similar to them ….. shhhhh !!!!

  2. Ralph

    Like the Democrats give a flying fuck where you’re registered…

  3. MD

    And, should she win, I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat. It would be futile to do anything else.

    But the same applies in any country, including – no, ESPECIALLY – Australia. The Left control the institutions of our country and the political agenda. Do you see any push-back anywhere on free speech, gun control, research grants, subsidies, education, immigration, ‘refugees’, income security, taxation, welfare, arts and sports funding, the green movement, property rights such as land clearing, indigenous issues, reforming the justice system, direct democracy, voluntary voting … and so on. No, NOTHING. The Howard, Abbott and Turnbull governments have allowed the Left to take over public institutions and control the political agenda.

    There is no push-back. The Left have won here as they have almost everywhere in the West. It’s not that the Left have something to offer or are better at politicking; it’s just that conservatives are too stupid and too cowardly to run a conservative agenda.

  4. Stimpson J. Cat

    And, should she win, I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat. It would be futile to do anything else.

    I never thought I would say this to anyone on this site.
    That’s crazy talk Steve.

  5. stackja

    MSM and HRC

    Lord Acton
    Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason.

  6. one old bruce

    Steve,
    Your well-argued pieces are always informative. But I see you are concerned about “the west” and this bothers me because it traditionally excludes Russia.

    Can we afford to continue to exclude Russia? Indeed won’t “the west” become increasingly marginal when everyone joins the Russia/China axis? Yes the US has ten times the military power and the only functioning Carrier systems, but what if no one believes they’ll be used? And what if they’re under Hillary’s command? Russians have always been chess players of foreign policy. My money is on them to outsmart Hillary at every turn, if she even gets out of bed once she wins the grand prize.

    We need to talk to Russia. Would we fight another war over Poland or eastern Europe? If Russia wants to be number one ally in Syria and dominate the region, giving it the ready access it’s craved for 300 years to its Black Sea bases, is that our worry? We talk big but are increasingly impotent. We need to seek practical foundations beyond the empty rhetoric (Theresa May’s speech in which she told Europeans they “all have to unite to oppose Russia’s” war crimes or whatever. Aah, Brexit, madam? How silly she sounds). “The west” is becoming a joke!

  7. Crossie

    Do you see any push-back anywhere

    There is plenty of pushback, the most significant being the results of the last federal election where votes from both Labor and the Coalition went to PHON, Xenophon and other minor parties. The Establishment, meaning both major parties, will be wittled away even further at the next election if there are no concessions in our direction.

  8. Crossie

    Russians have always been chess players of foreign policy. My money is on them to outsmart Hillary at every turn, if she even gets out of bed once she wins the grand prize.

    They are outsmarting her already by accommodating both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. I have no doubt that Ecuadorians are housing Assange with Putin’s approval. Even cutting off his Internet access was to throw suspicion on Hillary and Obama.

    I don’t mean that there is a deal between Trump and Putin but that Putin having dealt with her considers her a nut job who would start wars to shore up her image.

    What’s more, Hillary’s globalism is dead on arrival, she may not want to be a hegemon but Putin, the Chinese, Saudis and Iran all do.

  9. Ant

    Broken record, I know, BUT, she should never have even come close to the position she is in.

    She is a hopeless candidate and a pathetically weak campaigner. Despised, demonstrably corrupt, criminal and incompetent beyond measure.

    I used to say that 6 of the Republican candidates would have been unassailable against her. I’ve increased that to 10 or so of the original 17.

    No order of media whitewash or eulogising would have bleached the deep and dark stains enough from this woman’s record. Only a know-nothing narcissistic opponent trailing decades of baggage who’s obsessed with hogging the limelight could have achieved that.

    What a disaster – and all coming off the worst presidency in history.

  10. Paul

    For those republicans who can’t see Hillary’s and the democrats corruption, they must be either on the take or idiots, I cannot see any other excuse. If they firmly believe Trump is an idiot or incapable, then let them explain how Trump can build up a billion dollar empire without corruption as displayed by the Clintons.
    Those Republicans who think they will have a better chance in 4 years time are delusional, the democrats take over of all democratic processes in the US will be comprehensive, and no turning back.

  11. one old bruce

    “What’s more, Hillary’s globalism is dead on arrival”

    Yes, it’s based on the liberal “West Wing” belief that they can use the US military the way they used domestic police to bring “patriarchy” to heal in some countries. Obama already showed his impotence and lack of sophistication in using his powerful pieces in the global chess game. Now Hillary imagines she will just issue orders, likely incoherent and contradictory if not downright treasonous as her “4 minutes” gaff, and all the powerful men will jump to fulfill her wishes. And she’ll berate underlings and throw her servants under the bus meanwhile. All power no responsibility. Childish fantasy.

  12. jupes

    What a disaster – and all coming off the worst presidency in history.

    It’s not a disaster until she wins Ant.

    Therefore it won’t be a disaster at all because The Donald will win.

    Now is the time for you to start making a few subtle but conciliatory statements so you won’t look like such a tool when Trump becomes POTUS.

  13. hzhousewife

    I am interested to know what the Cats here think the general feeling/attitude is of the US military towards a Clinton or Trump led administration.

  14. one old bruce

    “Military Upset With Brain-Damaged, Absent-Minded Old Woman’s Disclosure of US Nuclear Response Times”

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=366441

  15. one old bruce

    The Us military’s attitude: go to

    Ace of Spades http://ace.mu.nu/

    and see the post titled: “Military Upset With Brain-Damaged, Absent-Minded Old Woman’s Disclosure of US Nuclear Response Times”.

  16. one old bruce

    The US military’s attitude: go to

    Ace of Spades: http ace (dot) mu (dot) nu (won’t allow me to post a link here).

    and see the post titled: “Military Upset With Brain-Damaged, Absent-Minded Old Woman’s Disclosure of US Nuclear Response Times”. Read the comments, plenty of insiders’ US mil. quips there.

  17. We need to consider the likelihood that not only are the Bush’s and Clintons crime families but they are associated crime families. They may have an extra reason to fear this particular outsider.

    Trump is in NY real estate and along with many architects, engineers, fireys, police etc he knows how buildings are made and how they fall.

    There. I’ve said it. For the first time to another living soul, I’ve said it. I’ll also say that it’s not possible for a guy who could not fly a Cessna to defy physics and shave the ground at full speed in a jetliner and hit the world’s most secure building with a precise horizontal hit. After which the jetliner folded its wings, penetrated several layers of ultra strong concrete and steel not with its durable motors but with its carbon steel and aluminium nose. Then the airliner ceased to exist.

    Feel free to pile on me because, as a conservative, I have piled on myself for thinking these thoughts. But there may be excellent reasons why establishment Republicans and Dems fear any outsider but especially one who has built skyscrapers in New York. Even if his buddy Giuliani was responsible for hoovering up evidence.

    My doubts came from listening to very tentative and non-partisan interviews with pilots on Italian TV, not from conspiracy websites and the like. Then, like more and more people, I had to wonder about the free fall of WTC7 which was not even hit by a plane. And I don’t enjoy thinking these things, let alone saying them.

    I don’t think that any of this is a reason to go soft on Islamic terror or illegal immigration. I still want to stop the boats.

    But the swamp that needs draining may be much bigger and swampier than any of us like to think. I say, drain it anyway.

  18. iampeter

    It’s funny isn’t it that after years of failing to reel in Bush Jnr and running terrible left-wing candidates like McCain and Romney the #NeverTrumpers suddenly decide to find “principles” and make a stand. They never define what those principles are though, nor do they seem to care that someone like Hillary will be President.

    Trump probably could’ve won them all over by promising to nominate Justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. It’s pretty much the only thing outside of the White-Identity politics Conservatives bother getting worked up about.

    Others have tried to argue that several of the other candidates could have beaten her but to that I say: what’s the point? None of those candidates except maybe Cruz has anything to say about limited government, capitalism or individual rights. To them I’d argue that Conservatism itself is the problem.

  19. Vicki

    I am interested to know what the Cats here think the general feeling/attitude is of the US military towards a Clinton or Trump led administration.

    Trump has said that he is briefed by many of the top brass. I think he is right. His recent comments on the situation in Aleppo and in the campaign to retake Mosul show a far more prescient approach than that of Hillary. He understands the importance of Syria to both Iran & Russia. But more importantly he understands the very poor decision of the Obama administration to support such cut-throat “rebel” groups as al-Nusra.

  20. jupes

    There. I’ve said it. For the first time to another living soul, I’ve said it.

    You gullible fucking idiot.

    Give yourself an uppercut.

  21. hzhousewife

    Thank you one old bruce, and Vicki. One of the reasons I support Trump is the impression that he is likely to delegate in areas he knows little about. As a manager, he would maybe be willing to appoint experts and take their views on board, ie he just might be a “listener”.

  22. memoryvault

    There. I’ve said it. For the first time to another living soul, I’ve said it.
    You gullible fucking idiot. Give yourself an uppercut.

    Mosomoso, while I admire your courage – and your logic – please understand there are three subjects that you simply can’t have a reasonable, rational debate about, here at the Cat.

    You have now discovered one of them. Leave it. It’s not worth the pain.

  23. No, Jupes, I’ve given myself the uppercuts and it doesn’t work. I was the last to think such thoughts, having really liked the Bush admin when it came to power, especially Rice and Cheney. But the facts are hard to hurdle.

    If someone had told me eight years ago that John McCain would be arming terrorists I’d have scoffed at them. But it looks like that’s exactly what has happened. Just like it seems that Australia has been complicit in bombing Syria to advantage ISIS. These are hard thoughts to think, doubly hard for a conservative, but mere snarling and abuse won’t make them go away.

  24. Siltstone

    5:48pm “I am interested to know what the Cats here think the general feeling/attitude is of the US military towards a Clinton or Trump led administration.”

    The Democrat administration desire to prevent votes of the military being accepted gives some idea as to what those who serve think.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/5/obama-suppressing-the-military-vote/

  25. jupes

    But the facts are hard to hurdle.

    Only if you are a gullible wacko in regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is no logic there at all MV. None.

    Also don’t conflate the US arming terrorists with nutty 9/11 conspiracy theories. One is a tale of incompetence, stupidity and an unwillingness to fight wars themselves, the other is just Bush and/or Jew-hating lunacy. Right up there with the Protocols of Zion.

    Keep going with the uppercuts. Hit harder this time. You’ll thank yourself later.

  26. Ant

    “Therefore it won’t be a disaster at all because The Donald will win.”

    I don’t share your confidence, but hope you’re right. If he wins from here it will be seen as a spectacular disaster for the political/media class – but that novelty will soon wear off and they’ll spend the entirety of his presidency trashing every move he makes up until his impeachment.

    “Now is the time for you to start making a few subtle but conciliatory statements so you won’t look like such a tool when Trump becomes POTUS.”

    I think I’ve been as honest as I can be about my assessments of Trump so there’s no point or need for a conciliatory statement. I don’t believe I have ever seriously made a comment about him which I did not believe to be true (jokes aside).

    And, as I’ve always said, he will accomplish either a train wreck of a campaign or, if successful, a train wreck of a presidency.

    Hope I’m wrong on either score.

  27. A small but telling point: Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off.

    A cruel and unusual punishment.

  28. Oh come on

    This election genuinely is driving people mad.

  29. Doc Daneeka

    But the swamp that needs draining may be much bigger and swampier than any of us like to think. I say, drain it anyway.

    I’m not sure what swamp you inhabit, but I venture it’s way past cleaning.
    Please enlighten us on how the moon landings were staged. I’ve always wondered about that.
    Devilishy clever, these conspirators…………

  30. jupes

    I don’t share your confidence, but hope you’re right.

    There you go.

    Well done.

  31. old bloke

    Mosomoso, while I admire your courage – and your logic – please understand there are three subjects that you simply can’t have a reasonable, rational debate about, here at the Cat.

    You have now discovered one of them. Leave it. It’s not worth the pain.

    I’m curious MV, what are the other two subjects which can’t be raised here at the Cat?

  32. Mique

    And, should she win, I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat. It would be futile to do anything else.

    It may also be very unwise, particularly for people hoping to visit the United States.

  33. Doc Daneeka, I don’t hold any conspiracy theories, nor do I associate the moon landings with 9/11. I don’t know what happened on 9/11 but I know some things remain baffling, especially WTC7’s fall and the Pentagon being hit by a hijacked airliner travelling close to the ground at 460 knots impact speed. So baffling, in fact, that I just can’t believe it, despite the reams of debunking and consensus reinforcing.

    Please don’t ask me for method and motive because I am not a conspiracy theorist and I don’t pretend to know. But you could certainly say that I no longer trust the Repub and Dem establishments and I would certainly like to see an end to Big War, Big Debt and Big Green. Which makes me as crazy as an Eisenhower.

    I can’t blame you for sneering because that was my reaction for many years to those who questioned the 9/11 consensus. I said I was ready to be piled upon and now I have to take that medicine.

    And I’m also going to take Memory Vault’s advice from here on.

  34. memoryvault

    I’m curious MV, what are the other two
    subjects which can’t be raised here at the Cat?

    Anything whatsoever to do with vaccinations, and
    a nation’s sovereign right to issue and control credit.

  35. jupes

    Doc Daneeka, I don’t hold any conspiracy theories, nor do I associate the moon landings with 9/11. I don’t know what happened on 9/11 but I know some things remain baffling, especially WTC7’s fall and the Pentagon being hit by a hijacked airliner travelling close to the ground at 460 knots impact speed. So baffling, in fact, that I just can’t believe it, despite the reams of debunking and consensus reinforcing.

    No. You do hold a conspiracy theory.

    You are beclowning yourself.

    Uppercut therapy. Go!

  36. old bloke

    Thanks MV. Those are topics that I’m not interested in anyway so I don’t have to worry about cyber ostracism here.

  37. hwka

    It is near impossible to understand the American voting system – so I will make no attempt to explain it here.
    My feeling however is that there is a near certainty of :
    1.Trump winning significantly more than 50% percentage of the popular vote.
    2.Clinton winning the Electoral College Vote.
    Such a result would be very serious indeed as there would be widespread civil unrest.
    Clinton has been very strident about gun ownership for a very good reason – the knowledge that an unpopular win could not be enforced.
    There may also be a very good reason why Trump responded as he did to the question of whether he would accept the result.
    Both candidates would be very well briefed on the current state of play – the numbers, the possibilities.
    A resounding win across the board is essential – for either candidate , but especially Clinton.
    The founding fathers were very mindful of the need for a well-armed militia.
    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
    “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
    – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
    Interesting times – but also a very, very dangerous time.

  38. Diogenes

    Mosomoso,
    Mrs ds uncle , at the time a LtCdr in the USNwas on the other side of the pentagon when the PLANE hit, he lost several friends and assisted in the aftermath. I suggest you tell him face to face it was not a plane, i know the least damage you will suffer is to loose all your teeth, if you are lucky you will be conscious at the end of the encounter.

  39. Ant

    There you go. Well done.

    It’s old news.

  40. And, should she win, I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat. It would be futile to do anything else.

    Pfft, as if. You and Ace are all talk. You have spent your careers opposing all that Hillary stands for.

    I double dog dare ya.

  41. memoryvault

    No. You do hold a conspiracy theory. You are beclowning yourself.

    You see, Mosomoso, the problem is that today there is no longer any such thing as a “conspiracy”, only “conspiracy theories”, which people are conditioned to immediately discount as whacko. Let me give you an example:

    If, about ten years ago, you had claimed to have stumbled on a plan by a group of religious fanatics to blow up the MCG during an AFL Grand Final, your claims would have been labelled a “conspiracy theory” and immediately discounted. Nonetheless, that is precisely what was happening. Seven religious fanatics were jailed.

    What were they charged with? Conspiring to carry out terrorist acts. What were they convicted of? Conspiring to commit terrorist acts. What was reported as them being charged with? They were reported as being charged with plotting to carry out terrorist acts. What were they reported as being convicted of? It was reported that they were convicted of plotting to carry out terrorist acts.

    Notice how subtly and seamlessly “conspiring” morphed into “plotting”, the moment the charade of “conspiracy theory” was lost? This ensures that “conspiracy theories” always remain the province of wackos, since they are never publicly established or proven.

    Keep faith with your own powers of deduction, Mosomoso. History has established time and again that the “consensus opinion” is wrong about 80% of the time.

  42. Megan

    And I’m not sure what you meant when you said there was no sign of the plane, mosomoso. Part of the challenge for the Investigation team at the Pentagon was separating building pieces from the bits of obliterated plane. Which they did. Are you suggesting the black boxes and flight data recorders were planted to put people off the track? Were all the eyewitnesses on the freeway having a joint hallucination?

    It’s not a bad thing to question the orthodoxy but at some point the physical evidence has to bring you back to reality.

  43. sdfc

    Why isn’t everyone on “the right” desperate to see Hillary lose?

    Maybe because Trumpy’s a dickhead and they are not all protectionist nutters.

  44. OldOzzie

    Ant

    #2180210, posted on October 22, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Broken record, I know, BUT, she should never have even come close to the position she is in.

    She is a hopeless candidate and a pathetically weak campaigner. Despised, demonstrably corrupt, criminal and incompetent beyond measure.

    I used to say that 6 of the Republican candidates would have been unassailable against her. I’ve increased that to 10 or so of the original 17.

    No order of media whitewash or eulogising would have bleached the deep and dark stains enough from this woman’s record. Only a know-nothing narcissistic opponent trailing decades of baggage who’s obsessed with hogging the limelight could have achieved that.

    What a disaster – and all coming off the worst presidency in history.

    Ant,

    Sorry, it is a broken record, as no matter who the Republicans put up against Hillary Clinton/Democrat Candidate, the MSM would destroy them.

    as succinctly pointed out by John Hinderaker in his article 13th October 2016

    THE LIBERAL MEDIA’S PERPETUAL SMEAR CAMPAIGN

    Today’s news is dominated by claims that years ago, Donald Trump made crude comments about women, or inappropriately touched women, or intruded into a women’s dressing room, and so on. Gone from the campaign are such issues as the economy, Obamacare, national security and immigration. As Election Day approaches, the news is all Trump scandals, all the time.

    Some will say–I may have said–that Republican primary voters asked for it by nominating a man with obvious personal vulnerabilities, instead of a more upright (and more electable) Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz or whoever.

    But what’s a Republican to do? Last cycle, we nominated the ultimate Boy Scout: Mitt Romney. Whatever you think of Romney from a policy perspective, he is as admirable a man as you will ever meet. To find a presidential candidate of better moral character, you probably have to go back to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Romney never said a rude word about a woman in his life.

    So what happened? Did Romney and the GOP get credit in the press for the candidates’s outstanding character? No. Romney, who helped to create tens of thousands of jobs at Bain Capital, was denounced as a “vulture capitalist” and blamed, absurdly, for one woman’s developing cancer. The Washington Post made a front page story of the fact that 50 years earlier, when he was in high school, he and others had cut a classmate’s hair. Oh, and Romney was a racist, too. Does anyone remember why? I don’t.

    The cycle before that, GOP voters nominated John McCain. McCain is a great patriot, a man of extraordinary character and courage who survived years of torture and abuse as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Did the liberal media give Republicans credit for nominating such a hero? No. The New York Times, to its everlasting shame, peddled a false rumor that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. (Bill Clinton would have done that before breakfast.) It also berated McCain for failing to release his medical records–which, actually, he did, unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

    The Left’s permanent smear campaign against conservatives doesn’t just extend to Republican presidential candidates. Recall how the Democrat/media complex treated the Tea Party. Prominent House Democrats lied, disgracefully: they claimed, falsely, that Tea Party activists at a protest in Washington had hurled racial insults at black Democrats like John Lewis. The press ate it up. They printed the Democrats’ lies as facts, and to this day reporters and editors have never corrected the libel, even though a $100,000 prize to anyone who could substantiate the Democrats’ lies went unclaimed.

    What’s the point? I’m not really sure. I certainly am not in favor of nominating candidates of poor or marginal character. But the hypocrisy of the liberal media is galling. In this election cycle, lewd comments made decades ago are apparently of earth-shattering importance. Really? Where was that standard when Bill Clinton was running for office? Or John Kennedy? Or Lyndon Johnson? And how about Barack Obama and Joe Biden? Has anyone actually investigated to see what they might have said about women over the last thirty years?

    What is the point of nominating someone of extraordinary moral stature, like Mitt Romney, if the political press will not only unanimously refuse to acknowledge the fact, but worse, join in a campaign of deception to smear Romney in the eyes of voters?

    These days there is lots of gnashing of teeth over the decline of our political culture. And it surely has declined, as manifested in the current presidential campaign. But one must ask, why has that happened? It seems to me that the media’s permanent smear campaign against the Republican Party, waged cycle after cycle regardless of the actual merits of Republican nominees, is the largest part of the answer.

  45. Jannie

    Mosomoso, it is not difficult to fly a large jet if you take it over in mid flight. Easy to steer and crash . You do need to know a few things about the specific plane, how to switch off the AP systems and where the power and control stick are. If you have trained in a simulator it’s easy. I don’t think too many airline pilots have any doubt about the obvious possibility of it happening, and happening again if simulator trained terrorists have access to the flight deck.

  46. Oh come on

    Ah but that’s how fiendishly clever these government agents are – they can run a massive conspiracy that would cost tens – maybe hundreds – of billions of dollars and require the cooperation and ongoing silence of thousands of individuals to pull off.

    This is hyper-competence. Far and away the most extraordinary feat any government anywhere has undertaken successfully. If the conspiracy theorists are right about 9/11, then we small government types are wrong about everything. It is possible for governments to engineer extraordinary outcomes.

    Have you factored this into your calculations, Moso? I’m sure you know a few things that apparently undermine the conventional explanations for WTC7 and the like. (I’m also sure these can be discounted by things you don’t know about the matter, but anyway…)
    Have you considered the inherent limitations of government capabilities? Do you honestly believe the state is capable of pulling off such a feat, and the only people who have figured out just happen to be the same old cranks and wrongologists who see conspiracy every time the sun rises?

    You really want to fuck that chicken, Mosomomo?

  47. Just to be clear, Diogenes, my doubt concerns whether it was an amateur and incapable pilot who started his maneuver in a 757 at 7000 feet and 396 knots, dived almost 5000 feet within a 330 degree turn and covered 5 miles in about 3 minutes before doing a 460 knots flat hit at ground level.

    Yes, I know there were many people in the Pentagon that day and that many were murdered. So you think I’m proposing not going after the bad guys?

    My father was a Lieutenant Commander in the RAN, by the way. Did two extra years minesweeping after ’45, served thereafter as RANVR for many years, though he never marched, wore medals or discussed war. I never heard him threaten anyone who disagreed with him, or threaten anyone at all. We are all still very proud of him.

  48. Oh come on

    If, about ten years ago, you had claimed to have stumbled on a plan by a group of religious fanatics to blow up the MCG during an AFL Grand Final, your claims would have been labelled a “conspiracy theory” and immediately discounted. Nonetheless, that is precisely what was happening. Seven religious fanatics were jailed.

    Bullshit. If you had evidence to back up your claims, of course they would be investigated. Ten years ago or today.

    This is stupidity of the highest order. Do you think that people who discount the whackjob theories your mob comes out with as a matter of course believe that there is no such thing as conspiracy in general? You utter plonker.

  49. sdfc

    You’re right moso. The Pentagon plane pilot should have completed his training, got a job at an airline and turned his talent to good rather than evil.

  50. hwka

    Mosomoso – some unsolicited advice.
    I listen to people that have all sorts of theories.
    Of course I reserve my patience for those theories that have some credibility.
    And I respect and envy those capable of delivering a credible and convincing point of view.
    But on the time-honoured principle of never taking a knife to a gunfight I think you should tell Jupes to go impregnate himself – and the hobby horse he rode in on.
    Because the real “f…ing idiot” is the one who (devoid of any argument?) resorts to abuse – only.
    Surprised the moderators thought it was OK.
    Many people are very concerned about 9/11.
    There are some real wacko theories but there are some serious questions that have not been answered.
    The WTC9 is certainly one of them.
    I believe 9/11 happened as generally portrayed but the main actors may be forever in the shadows.
    As to Government involvement -where there is capability there is always possibility.
    But there is no credible evidence on a 9/11 conspiracy.
    On conspiracy theories though , JFK was assassinated November 22, 1963.
    They got the perp in record time though – a nutter with an old rifle who surpassed any/all Olympic marksmanship standards for rounds delivered in minimum time to an obscured, moving target.
    The JFK files are still locked 50+ years later.
    Funny that.

  51. As to the possibility of concerted mass misinformation let me cite two examples: the climate industry which brought us the South Australian miracle and the mainstream media who are bringing us Hillary.

  52. Oh come on

    To be a reflexive conspiracy theorist like MV, you require a belief in the state; that it is vastly capable. You must believe that the state is staffed by geniuses who have the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the overwhelming majority – they can trick us into believing official explanations for 9/11, the Moon landings, contrails, water additives and the like. They’re so clever that they can engineer these events so that independent scientific opinion supports the official explanations. Or that the scientific community is in on the conspiracy.

    Being a conspiracy theorist means you must attribute the state with astonishing levels of competence.

  53. Mark A

    sdfc

    You’re right moso. The Pentagon plane pilot should have completed his training, got a job at an airline and turned his talent to good rather than evil.

    Don’t you dare chanel my eternal hero Maxwell Smart

  54. Ant

    Sorry, it is a broken record, as no matter who the Republicans put up against Hillary Clinton/Democrat Candidate, the MSM would destroy them.

    Is this news?

    Hardly. I still recall the relentless outright war they waged on Reagan. How many general elections did he lose?

  55. Oh come on

    As to the possibility of concerted mass misinformation let me cite two examples: the climate industry which brought us the South Australian miracle and the mainstream media who are bringing us Hillary.

    Um, no. And no. Plenty of people aren’t buying either example. Remember the old adage about it being possible to fool some of people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. You are suggesting that it’s possible to fool all* of the people all of the time with your Truther nonsense.

    *well, all minus a tiny group of cranks who are routinely ignored because their grasp on reality is tenuous at best – but somehow they figured out what really happened on the 11th of Sept, 2001

  56. the not very bright Marcus

    I know very little but have a keyboard and internet …I am with you Mosomoso on so many aspects but i also consider that a mate and i can keep a secret but the more mates we involve the less secret it becomes … No one has “broken ranks” …. yet , I do do think that there must be something there . Keep looking , keep us posted and look forward to basking in the glow of “I told yer so “….
    As I too look forward to saying “told ya Trump would win” ..

  57. jupes

    You see, Mosomoso, the problem is that today there is no longer any such thing as a “conspiracy”, only “conspiracy theories”, which people are conditioned to immediately discount as whacko.

    You made that up MV.

    Of course there is such a thing as a conspiracy. Your example of Muzzos conspiring to blow up the MCG not being believable is ridiculous. It is entirely believable now and it would have been 20 years ago.

    9/11 was an Al Qaeda conspiracy. George Bush or the Jews being involved in the same plot is a conspiracy theory.

    I can’t believe I actually have to explain that.

  58. jupes

    As to the possibility of concerted mass misinformation let me cite two examples: the climate industry which brought us the South Australian miracle and the mainstream media who are bringing us Hillary.

    True, these are excellent examples of mass misinformation, though neither of those things are conspiracy theories nor indeed even conspiracies.

    Rafe has been posting explanations for the climate change scam, one of which can be found here.

    Note that this doesn’t involve large numbers of people being briefed into a plan that involves high levels of secrecy, precise timings, massive logistics and the deliberate killing of large numbers of Americans.

    It is literally insane to believe conspiracy theories.

  59. the not very bright Marcus

    It is literally insane to believe conspiracy theories.

    I have letters from melbourne’s top shrinks that say I am allowed outside .

  60. Zyconoclast

    You utter plonker

    An old fashion, and rarely heard insult.
    Thanks for the reminder.

  61. memoryvault

    You must believe that the state is staffed by geniuses who have the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the overwhelming majority – they can trick us into believing official explanations for 9/11, the Moon landings, contrails, water additives and the like.

    You see what I mean, Mosomoso. At no point did you claim to know what actually happened, or how, or why, or perpetrated by whom. You simply expressed doubt. But doubt is not allowed. One must not question the consensus.

    Therefore you are guilty of manufacturing some enormous “conspiracy theory” involving a cast of thousands, if not millions. Not only that, you are guilty of perpetrating and supporting every “conspiracy theory” known to Mankind since the beginning of time.

    Continue to question your doubts, Mosomoso. Continue to strive for truth. Like you, as to the matter at hand, I have no idea what “the truth” is. I only know what “isn’t”. That’s no valid reason to drink the Kool Aid of consensus borne of cowardice.

  62. jupes

    You see what I mean, Mosomoso. At no point did you claim to know what actually happened, or how, or why, or perpetrated by whom. You simply expressed doubt.

    Well yes. Mosomoso expressed doubt that a the plane could fly into the Pentagon and that a building can catch fire and fall down.

    That being the case, what could the ‘truth’ possibly be? That it wasn’t a plane that flew into the Pentagon – therefore it must have been a rocket, and that a building can’t catch fire and fall down – therefore it must have been blown up by explosives. (Are there any other possibilities?).

    Both ridiculous conspiracy theories. How could you believe this shit? Seriously.

  63. MV, the reason I’m wary of expressing more than serious doubts is that most of what I’ve been thinking is based on doubts expressed by European and other pilots, who refuse to say who is to blame or why. They don’t claim an amateur can’t fly a 757, but they are in disbelief over the Pentagon crash, which was anything but a simple dive into a huge flat target. More a miracle stunt. The damage was also very peculiar.

    As for the fall of WTC7, listening to authorities claim it wasn’t really a free fall as in controlled demo is a bit like listening to Whoopie Goldberg making excuses for Roman Polanski.

    To clarify for jupes, I am certain a plane can crash into the Pentagon (if it gets past all the land and air defenses). My skepticism is about the pilot, manoeuvre and damage. I also think a building can catch fire and fall. A clean fall into a neat footprint in seconds is another matter. My points were made about specific cases.

    If I knew how to be a conspiracy theorist I could fill you in more. But I can’t. Because I’m not. But Bush family support for Hillary is making me a lot less sentimental and sensitive about raising these matters.

    As to how people get away with big fibs, I imagine our Western mainstream media would be a prodigious help.

  64. memoryvault

    Well yes. Mosomoso expressed doubt that a the plane could fly into the Pentagon and that a building can catch fire and fall down.

    That being the case, what could the ‘truth’ possibly be? That it wasn’t a plane that flew into the Pentagon – therefore it must have been a rocket, and that a building can’t catch fire and fall down – therefore it must have been blown up by explosives. (Are there any other possibilities?).

    See how it works, Mosomoso. You question the alleged skills of an alleged pilot, and suddenly an entire plane disappears. You question the ability of a plane alone to inflict the damage recorded, and again the plane disappears.

    You question the likelihood of three steel-framed skyscrapers, for the first and only time in history, collapsing into their own footprint, on the same day, and suddenly we have a demolition theory that involves the entire U.S. government, and all of its agencies.

    Both ridiculous conspiracy theories. How could you believe this shit? Seriously.

    Again, “conspiracy theories” Remember, Mosomoso, if anything is ever established as “fact”, it won’t be a “conspiracy theory”. It will be a plot. There are no conspiracies.

  65. jupes

    See how it works, Mosomoso. You question the alleged skills of an alleged pilot, and suddenly an entire plane disappears.

    You deluded twit MV. Here is Mosomoso’s original post:

    There. I’ve said it. For the first time to another living soul, I’ve said it. I’ll also say that it’s not possible for a guy who could not fly a Cessna to defy physics and shave the ground at full speed in a jetliner and hit the world’s most secure building with a precise horizontal hit. After which the jetliner folded its wings, penetrated several layers of ultra strong concrete and steel not with its durable motors but with its carbon steel and aluminium nose. Then the airliner ceased to exist.

    There is no other way to read that than that it wasn’t a plane that hit the Pentagon. A classic conspiracy theory. Pure fucking loony tunes.

    You question the likelihood of three steel-framed skyscrapers, for the first and only time in history, collapsing into their own footprint, on the same day, and suddenly we have a demolition theory …

    There is no other possible explanation. Not even loony conspiracy theorists can come up with another explanation. Either fire starting from the WTC attack dropped the building or they were destroyed by demolition.

    … that involves the entire U.S. government, and all of its agencies.

    Again, you are making shit up. I never said that. However destroying a building with explosive would involve a conspiracy of “large numbers of people”. Even more amazing that no one noticed them doing it.

    FMD how gullible are you two loons?

  66. Art Vandelay

    Being a conspiracy theorist means you must attribute the state with astonishing levels of competence.

    Spot on. It’s pretty hard to be a conspiracy theorist if you’ve ever worked for government or dealt with government.

    The idea that a government could competently pull off a huge, complex conspiracy such as 9/11 without anything going wrong or without anyone finding out is laughable.

  67. jupes

    Again, “conspiracy theories” Remember, Mosomoso, if anything is ever established as “fact”, it won’t be a “conspiracy theory”. It will be a plot. There are no conspiracies.

    Fucking wow.

    What a load of shit.

  68. memoryvault

    Thank you, gentlemen (and maybe ladies), for so succinctly proving my point.
    There are three subjects which must never be questioned on the Cat.
    Because reasoned debate is impossible. Goodnight all.

  69. jupes

    Because reasoned debate is impossible.

    Of course.

    Conspiracy theorists are fucking loons.

  70. Oh come on

    three steel-framed skyscrapers, for the first and only time in history, collapsing into their own footprint, on the same day

    Geez Einstein you could be onto something here. Due to the fact that 9/11 was an unprecedented, exceptional event, wouldn’t you factor this into your considerations as to why the buildings may not have collapsed as scale models might in a controlled environment?

    Well, people who weren’t crackers would.

    But deluded dimwits like you, MV, you assume ‘government conspiracy’ from the outset and work backwards. There’s a solid reason why what you describe as “reasonable, rational” perspectives are not treated with the respect you appear to believe they deserve. They are contemptuous, that’s why, and they and the people spruiking them are treated accordingly. You and your feverish ideas are neither rational nor deserving of respect. The fact that you are not permitted to indulge in your flights of fantasy without people here vigorously reminding you that your thinking is as nutty as a fruitcake – this is a strength of the blog. The bullshit filter at The Cat is as sensitive as it is merciless. Leftists don’t get away with peddling their discredited, decrepit ideas, and neither do the likes of you. This is a feature, not a bug.

  71. Infidel Tiger

    three steel-framed skyscrapers, for the first and only time in history, collapsing into their own footprint, on the same day

    No I think it also happened back in 1377.

    Dickhead.

  72. jupes, you are right to pull me up on my wording. Let me clarify.

    My reference was to the narrow entry hole, absence of truly convincing plane wreckage, absence of convincing film footage and lack of any wing marks on the external walls. The last penetration point, six capital walls into the strongest building in the world, was a hole, quite neat, but with no plane left, just some rubble and mangled hardware. This was achieved with a very oblique trajectory.

    I do not know what hit the Pentagon nor what was removed or placed by way of evidence – if indeed anything was removed or placed. None of it makes sense to me, starting with the unlikely absence of defenses well after alert and the Transport Secretary’s bizarre account of Cheney’s reactions.

    Pretending to know is for conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, I have certainly been a gullible loon many times in my life. The only remedies for me have been to turn off the MSM, use the TV for footy, cricket and old Dolf Lundgren movies, and research important matters with an open mind and knowledge of my limitations. Because the MSM are that bad.

    And I still can’t buy WTC7 and the Pentagon hit. The rest I find hard to believe, but that is not a reason to disbelieve. For years I accepted the box-cutter hijacks and pancaking skyscrapers and only started to ask questions when I started looking at flight 77 and WTC7.

    What I’ve learned from tonight is that 9/11 skepticism can get you called a lot of names in a big hurry. Nonetheless, thanks to all who piled on, because I’ve been guilty of piling on and it’s always an education to spend time behind the counter and cop it from the public. I can see there’ll be more coming.

  73. Snoopy

    Mosomoso, Popular Mechanics must be part of the Flight 77 conspiracy also. But read this anyway. Just for laughs.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

  74. Oh come on

    Thank you, gentlemen (and maybe ladies), for so succinctly proving my point.

    No, no point you’ve made has been proven. Your stupid, discredited, insulting ideas have been shown the unvarnished contempt they deserve. No one with half a brain would bother attempting to dignify your ill-considered perspectives via “reasoned debate”. They are not reasonable, so it’s a fool’s errand. End of.

    So by all means slink out of here – that’s fine, you ought to. But don’t attempt to wrap yourself in some kind of ‘mission accomplished’ banner as you do so. That’s just laughable.

  75. Oh come on

    What I’ve learned from tonight is that 9/11 skepticism can get you called a lot of names in a big hurry.

    Are you a structural engineer? Are you? So why the hell do you think you’re a bloody expert on what buildings should be like after planes full of avgas are flown into them? You are trotting out the exact same know-nothing bullshit that conspiracy theorists the world over use to raise questions over matters they know very little about.

    And what’s with the act that there’s a significant distinction between you and some typical conspiracy theorist nutjob? You are one and the same. No you don’t have a right to be respectfully listened to if you want to come in here pedalling that bullshit. Expect to have scorn ladled upon you. It’s not as though you’re bringing anything new to the conversation.

  76. Thank you for the link, Snoopy. I’d already checked out that well-known article and found it had interesting arguments covering some of the pro-consensus points. What stands out is their theory that it was the landing gear which penetrated six Pentagon walls (seven if you count a transverse wall?) and made the final hole. The Italian pilots who first got me thinking about this were of the opinion that only a steel and titanium engine could have been durable enough to do that much penetrating, though they didn’t sound confident.

  77. Oh come on,

    I’m not an engineer, though many skeps are. But please note that I’ve been commenting on WTC7, which was not hit by a plane, and there was no avgas involved. If it weren’t for building 7 I doubt I’d be commenting now.

  78. Snoopy

    Mosomoso, where are getting the idea something punched a hole through six walls? There were only two holes FFS.

  79. slow&easy

    Are you a structural engineer?

    I happen to be one and the last place on earth I’d want to be caught in, in case of fire is a purely steel framed building. There are many variations of ‘steel framed’ the WTC were pure steel framed the only concrete consisted of the floors. All load bearing was steel.
    And for the thousands times. steel does not need to melt, if heated it will lose strength exponentially

    If any of those planes hit the buildings say two to three floors below the top then the rest of the buildings would, in all probability survived intact. I say ‘probability’ because I don’t know the safety factors the design engineers worked with.

    Collapsing 2 floors on the rest of the structure in all probability wasn’t enough to do catastrophic damage, do the same with the weight of 8 floors with kinetic energy and this is what you get.

    In case you’re wondering what’s the difference between a static weight lowered and the same weight dropped as was the case you can do some experiments with a hammer and your toes.

    Again in relation to the titanium nonsense, speed and mass is your equation. Give a cottonball enough speed and it will kill you. (the speed may be unobtainable in air but it’s true nonetheless)

  80. Oh come on

    But please note that I’ve been commenting on WTC7, which was not hit by a plane

    Err okay so…

    My reference was to the narrow entry hole, absence of truly convincing plane wreckage, absence of convincing film footage and lack of any wing marks on the external walls. The last penetration point, six capital walls into the strongest building in the world, was a hole, quite neat, but with no plane left, just some rubble and mangled hardware. This was achieved with a very oblique trajectory.

    …this is all WTC7 chatter, is it?

    I’m not an engineer, though many skeps are.

    Skeps? How quaint, you’ve got a cute little name you call yourselves. I think cranks is closer to the mark. And many of you cranks are engineers, so you claim. Their specialist field of engineering being…?

    Actually, I seem to recall there was one relatively prominent structural engineer who initially bought into the Truther bullshit. He was a Truther pin-up for quite a while. He was their star (token) expert, and by crikey did they milk him for all he was worth! Until he backed away from his initial ‘expert’ assertions.

    Just stop trying to wrap your crankery in respectable garb. Just stop it. You don’t have “lots of” specialists in building construction/demolition swelling your ranks. You just made that up. Just like you made up your sudden, uncomfortable conversion into the whacko Truther cult. No, you’ve been there a fair while and it’s quite familiar to you, eh, “skep”?

  81. Hey, thanks for not swearing at me Snoopy, excepting with initials.

    This is Wiki quoting WaPo, both very consensus:

    “The front part of the fuselage disintegrated on impact, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris penetrating furthest into the building. In all, the airplane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 feet (94 m) into the three outermost of the building’s five rings.”

    Each ring has two walls plus all sorts of other reinforcement and on the trajectory followed there was a transverse wall connecting one of the rings. Some say tail section, as above, some say landing gear, some say engine. But a hole got punched through that third ring 94 metres into the Pentagon. Whatever made it through all those reinforced concrete walls and pillars (plus bricks and kevlar) seems to have disintegrated after making that final hole.

    Hope this helps.

  82. Oh come on

    Hey, thanks for not swearing at me Snoopy, excepting with initials.

    People have this strange negative reaction when you insult their intelligence. So hard to understand their hostility!

  83. Oh come on,

    Perhaps I should have added “when discussing towers”. I’ll be more precise in future.

    So…WTC7 was not hit by a plane. It’s funny the very forthright people who don’t seem to know that. When it’s pointed out they can get even crankier – so look out.

  84. Oh come on

    Each ring has two walls plus all sorts of other reinforcement and on the trajectory followed there was a transverse wall connecting one of the rings. Some say tail section, as above, some say landing gear, some say engine. But a hole got punched through that third ring 94 metres into the Pentagon. Whatever made it through all those reinforced concrete walls and pillars (plus bricks and kevlar) seems to have disintegrated after making that final hole.

    You don’t know. You have no idea what impact a plane flown into the side of the Pentagon ‘should’ have. You just have a feeling – it makes sense to you, for no reason you can explain – that it should have been different. You don’t know anything. Yet you continue to insult the memory of those who perished in this terrorist attack by claiming that it was a false flag operation. An inside job. Then you caterwaul when people call you mean names. Fuck you, pal. You deserve all the shit that’s flung at you, and then some.

  85. Oh come on

    WTC7 was not hit by a plane.

    Actually, I’m well aware of that. Not sure why you thought otherwise. Perhaps because I’m not wildly speculating as to the cause of the building’s collapse?

  86. J.H.

    Trump will win….. and quite handily at that according to this model’s metrics.

  87. slow&easy

    J.H.

    Trump will win….. and quite handily at that according to this model’s metrics.

    Hope he is right but there is a lot of hurdles.

  88. slow&easy

    Hope he is right but there is a lot of hurdles.

    there are a lot of hurdles as well.

  89. A Lurker

    This election genuinely is driving people mad.

    I left the US election train a platform or two ago, and have long waved it goodbye.
    Whatever will be, will be.

  90. Up The Workers!

    “A small but telling point: Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off.”

    And therein lies the difference.

    Personally, I wouldn’t piss on Hillary, even if she was on fire.

    Julian Assange DID, and had: “… his Internet cut off…”.

    Mine still works!

  91. OldOzzie

    Americans showing more sense than Australians? – Amazing

    As Americans Tire of Eco-Panic, Hillary Quietly Drops ‘Climate Change’ Rhetoric

    Ever since July, Hillary Clinton has eliminated the words “climate change” from most of her public addresses, according to recent reports.

    A Yale University study released in July revealed that only 17 percent of American voters describe themselves as “alarmed” about climate change, or would rank it as a top tier election issue. Republican candidate Donald Trump has successfully positioned himself as a climate-change skeptic, and Hillary seems to have registered how little the issue resonates with voters.

    Climate Home, a UK-based environmental advocacy group associated with the left-wing Guardian newspaper, searched for the words “climate change” in all speech transcripts published on the Clinton campaign website between January 2016 and early September and found that she had all but abandoned reference to climate change since July.

    A broader search for the word “environment” confirmed the trend to back away from climate issues, with Clinton mentioning the word in just four of her 78 official speeches in 2016.

    The release of the Yale study on American perceptions of “climate change” in July coincided with Bernie Sanders’ offering his public endorsement of Hillary on July 12, 2016.

    While she was still contending with Sanders for the Democratic nomination, Hillary often brought up environmental issues. During the last six months of her battle with Sanders, in fact, the transcript log of her speeches reveals that she mentioned climate change in one out of every two speeches she gave.

    Ever since that time, however, Clinton has referred to climate change in just one out of every five public addresses.

    Clinton’s apparent waffling on the issue has not sat well with many on the Left.

    Timmons Roberts, Ittleson professor of environmental studies at Brown University, said that Hillary’s lack of commitment to environmental issues has produced “a big haemorrhage of her supporters over to Jill Stein of the Green Party.”

    Stein herself has taken advantage of Clinton’s ambivalence, criticizing the Democratic candidate for her unwillingness to take a more committed stand.

    “Hillary Clinton’s silence on the issue of the depth of the ecological crisis is deafening,” Stein said. “While she makes the occasional passing nod to the environment, I have made it the very cornerstone of my entire campaign.”

    Republican candidate Donald Trump, on the other hand, has continued to gain ground on a platform that includes climate-change skepticism. “I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change,” he famously said last March.

    A Pew Research Center poll earlier this year found that fewer than half of all Americans are concerned that climate change will harm them personally, and that most Republicans and Independents do not believe that global climate change is “a very serious problem.”

  92. John Comnenus

    The perpetual smear aching indeed. It is the same here. If GOP Candidate is smeared by the Left and then the Left forever decries the nastiness of politics. No one is spared, none. Anyone who thinks Cruz or Walker or Perry (the three candidates I favoured) would not come under the same smears is delusional.

    The one difference with Trump is that he is prepared to fight back unlike McCain and Romney. And I hope he does sue those women and remorselessly bankrupts them. Someone has to ensure there are consequences for participating in the perpetual smear machine.

  93. lotocoti

    I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat.

    Don’t forget to slip the Clinton Foundation some Benjamins too.
    For a modest donation, you could be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

  94. Diogenes

    Mosomo,
    How do you think your Lt Cdr would react if he was told at least once a month he is liar, the japanese never murdered aussies on the death marches etc.

    I willl not comment on the skills required , but a conspiracy that sized…

  95. Botswana O'Hooligan

    The trouble is that either a politician or Trump will win but it won’t matter because the administration will not change one iota.

  96. wozzup

    And people wonder why I hope Trump will win.

    I happen to think that Trump is just about the greatest bozo to ever run for President (and that saying something when you look back through the rouges gallery of bozos including the present incumbent). But at least he is not the corrupt , sinister and frankly evil Hillary Clinton who on her demonstrated behaviour will do anything to get and hold power. Hence, he is a preferable candidate, no matter how bad he turns out to be in practice. A woman who while in office as senior diplomat sells influence to parties hostile to her country and then uses her power to avoid indictment is not morally equipped to be Head of State.

    At least Trump makes a pretext of loving his country and is no more than averagely morally impaired. Something I cannot say for any denizens of the Left who make it an article of faith that they despise the culture that gave rise to them. (Frankly if any system that allows such people as Clinton to come to power I am not so sure they are wrong to despise that system – just not for the reason they give).

  97. The_Consigliere

    And, should she win, I will delete all of my previous posts and become a registered Democrat. It would be futile to do anything else.

    You should probably go ahead and do that already to save time. There really isn’t any point waiting for the coronation. 😉

  98. Yohan

    Yes, I know there were many people in the Pentagon that day and that many were murdered.

    I just want to point out, this is not true. The plane crashed into an empty wing of the Pentagon undergoing renovation. The main people that died there were cleaners and janitors.

    Amazing luck eh!!

  99. Yohan

    The reason the right does not support Trump is all to do with his anti immigration stance. It is THE ISSUE. Establishment conservatives are so scared of being called racist, they would rather openly support a left-wing Democrat for president. Yet when they leave the room, every lefty calls them a racist and nazi anyway.

    They desperately want Hilary to win, so they can go back to promoting a housebroken Conservatism Inc.

  100. Dr Fred Lenin

    Upport Trump not because I agree with him ,but because he is against the elitist ,u.n. Communist globalists mist of whom are rich crooks like the lapsed Jew soros (schwartz) _that maggot gore and tge crooked clintons nd their ilk . Just as here in our country I support the much maligned Pauline Hanson .this countery has been hoverned by nloody fools since that theiving maggot ruddgot out of therapy and became , prime monster, even the alp rabbits couldnt stand him so they put that theif giliard ho stole money fom widows and orphans She was useless too feathering her own nest so back o the crazy rudd .he had alrady feathered his nest through his wifes “business” pretending to find . jobs that =didnt exist .for people who didnt want them . Fi ally the alp clowns were thrown out and Howads hatchet man Abbott ho had got Hanson jsiled on trumped up charges mbecame pm ,he wasnt nearly as ruthless with the career maggots in his own gang and was repaced by the current imbecile ,a totally incompetent clown in the career pollie mode . We are lucky however. The alternative government cosists of two bob lawyers . Union thieves and idiots who believe in windmills like Don Quixote ,power fom the People asin SA . What a blody mess thats why we need Trumo Hanson , Farage Putin down to earth no pc bullshit peopke .

  101. Muddy

    At the risk of extending this digression, there is a sobering book about the Pentagon rescue operations titled “Then Came the Fire.” It can be downloaded for free from the U.S. Army’s Center for Military History website [which isn’t coming up on my computer right now: history.army.mil]. It contains no technical details about the crash itself, but is a essentially a collection of recollections from those who were there. Like I wrote, sobering.

  102. Boambee John

    mosomoso,

    The Pentagon was built in a matter of months in the early 1940s, it might not actually be the “strongest building in the world”. Try SAC Headquarters, or better, the Admiralty “citadel” in London, the latter was built a bit before the Pentagon.

    OCO,

    Jetliners use AVTUR not AVGAS (crudely, kerosene, not petrol).

  103. Oh come on

    Your pointing that out serves what particular purpose, John? Pat on head for pedantic nitpicking? Granted – *pat pat*. Happy now?

  104. .

    Well done Katterlaxy. Keep on aiming low.

  105. Mayan

    He wishes to increase taxes on Amazon. The owner of that company controls the Washington Post.

    On which planet is Trump not a vindictive fascist?

  106. JC

    Mayan

    He wishes to increase taxes on Amazon. The owner of that company controls the Washington Post.

    On which planet is Trump not a vindictive fascist?

    I’m torn to shreds about this Mayan. What Trump is proposing against Amazon and the WaPo is simply awful. How about some payback though? The Left have been after private firms they don’t like for decades now. Billy Bush, taped without his knowledge, was fired because he was having a bawdy conversation with Trump about women . The Left has been doing too much of this without payback and payback should be a bitch.

  107. He wishes to increase taxes on Amazon. The owner of that company controls the Washington Post.

    On which planet is Trump not a vindictive fascist?

    Excruciatingly disappointing that Bezo’s blog has partaken in the Trump witch hunt. So much for Bezos the libertarian. Not happy at all with Bezos or amazon, it’s become a 2nd rate ebay. Full of chinese crap with chinglish brand names.

  108. Oh come on

    Zippy, what would you expect? Trump is threatening to single out and tax his business to the wall – for the heinous crime of offering stuff to people that they want to buy. (You may think it sells cheap crap, fine; don’t buy it. But don’t get in the way of others who do want to buy it.) If you were Bezos and the company you’d built was facing potential ruin at the hands of a President Trump, wouldn’t you be anti-Trump? I know I sure as hell would. What’s more, I’d be doing everything in my power to ensure he wasn’t elected.

  109. JC

    OCO

    I don’t think he’s threatened Amazon with a tax. He’s threatened the FTC to go after them.

  110. Oh come on

    If Bezos went for Trump prior to Trump threatening such action, I’d say all’s fair. In that case, payback is indeed a bitch, as you said. The non-Left has been pansying out on fighting fire with fire for far too long – it’s about time someone had the stomach to deliver a good kick in the balls when required.

    However, if Bezos became an anti-Trumper after Trump promised to sic the Feds onto his company if he becomes President, I’d say that’s a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

  111. Bezos has been a lefty greeny enviroweenie for a long time.
    I’ve no sympathy for him. Plus he’s set out to slaughter others. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Though singling out one’s political enemies for government jackbooting does make one into an Obama, who has used the DOJ & the IRS on political opponents, & those who’ve committed thought crimes, and used them without any mercy.

  112. Austin Mangosteen

    George Soros controls the company that operates the voting machines in 16 states. Soros says that Trump will win the popular vote but not the electoral college vote.

    Reporter: So you think Hillary Clinton is a done deal?
    Soros: Yeah.



Comments are closed.