38 thoughts on “De Monday Papers

  1. mildred st. meadowlark

    I’ll be so glad when this bloody election is over. Can’t imagine how the Americans feel.

    1. petey

      we’re appaled.

      and let’s be clear, h. Clinton is george bush jr. in democratic garb. what i think of bush and his policies can’t be printed in a family organ like this. but she’s not a serial bankrupt, nor a fraudulent, sexually arrested, violently threatening sc*mb*g, who has opened the faucet for gender bigots calling for race war and othet terribly oppressed white men. I’ve never pulled a democratic lever iny life, but…

      1. Clampers Outside

        ” who has opened the faucet for gender bigots calling for race war ” …that could apply to both candidates in fairness, and Clinton has previous form to boot! …in all fairness.

    1. f_lawless

      I know you might scoff, but I’m left wondering was this latest email ‘scandal’ always destined to nowhere; designed to manage the psychology of the majority voters: – Rather simply urging them to vote for the establishment’s chosen candidate in a foregone conclusion, the majority voters need to me made feel they’re doing something positive with their vote by averting the ‘real’ danger that the ogre Trump could get in.
      First, create the narrative through the media that the latest affair has damaged Hilary’s lead so much in the run up to the election that there’s a realistic chance that Trump could get in.
      Then right before election day, announce that the investigation has been called off, allowing Clinton to claim she’s been vindicated and to draw a line in sand over the entire email scandal, case closed, while at the same time reassuring the majority voters’ doubt that she’s not fit for office.

        1. f_lawless

          yeah , the thing is , in the light of the revelation that the acting DOJ official in this latest case gave a ‘heads up’ to Clinton via email prior to an earlier probe, I don’t think it’s a correct application of Occam’s Razor to just take this story at face value.

          Spinning false narratives to the US public has become a modus operandi of the US establishment for quite a while now, (eg WMDs, invading the Middle East to “keep Americans safe”, etc) . Are you aware that the US government effectively legalised the use of propaganda on it’s own citizens back in 2013? https://www.occupycorporatism.com/how-the-ndaa-allows-us-gov-to-use-propaganda-against-americans/
          Of course my original comment is just conjecture; I’m not contesting that!

          1. SOQ

            Governments always spin, our own included, which is why they have so many doctors but the usual mistake about conspiracies is that for the most part, conspirators are not as not nearly as clever as they are given credit for. In this case the FBI made an almighty cock up, the Republicans are in chaos and the US electoral system is being questioned like never before.

            But, what was quite extraordinary is how so many unwittingly took part in a very nasty smear campaign against the only credible candidate. They wanted to believe that Hillary was dying, or that she was a satanist or that she was ate children. The use of an email server which was at best poor judgement became the crime of the century. Complete distractions from the fact that for every policy Trump presented, Hillary had ten, the depth of which he could not comprehend let alone match.

          2. The Lady Vanishes

            There’s a term called circumstantial evidence – it refers to different items of evidence, not individually significant enough to be of consequence, which, when taken together, may present a different picture. Individual issues relating to Hillary – such as the wikileaks – can only be understood in this context.

            There are a lot of individual matters in relation to Hillary, from Vince Foster to Jeffrey Epstein, which have never been satisfactorily explained and which take together paint an extremely vivid, cumulative picture of obfuscation and corruption.

            Couple that with the undeniable fact that there’s something about her which is incredibly unpleasant, and she makes a very unappealing candidate for president even disregarding the more outrageous (but persistent) rumours referenced in this post.

            An examination of presidential candidates and their subsequent careers and biographies shows that a lot of outrageous rumours have actually been based to some degree on fact, sometimes on a misunderstanding of the facts but rarely a complete misattribution. Remember the lady who stood outside the White House for a year with a sign saying Kennedy was an adulterer. Everyone thought she was insane. Then it was confirmed that Kennedy had in fact been having an affair with an employee who lived in her building.

            Hilary and her cronies are creepy, unpleasant, people who, despite being very unappealing, appear to have obtained considerable power. People associated with them have died in strange circumstances. Their financial dealings – and personal lives – are – to say the least – murky. Epstein and Wiener are like characters from the BBC kids’ green room in the 1960s. The same names keep cropping up all the time, linked to either financial or sexual weirdness.

            Trump is not a very appealing person either, but comes across as someone with a bit more humanness (for want of a better word) than Hill. In addition, there haven’t been as many deaths or as much political corruption associated with him. Maybe that’s just been because he hasn’t been in politics as long, who knows. But even if he’s equally corrupt, a change of corrupt regime can only be an improvement.

          3. Sheik Yahbouti

            “humanness” believe me there are plenty of better words. So basically you find Clinton and, presumably, Democrats in general to be “unappealing and creepy”. Also you rely on the grand old maximum “no smoke without fire”. Is that you Melania, ya good t’ing? ;-D

          4. Clampers Outside

            @The Lady Vanishes…. one of the things about Hillary supporters that I find particularly peculiar is how those that claim to be outraged at Trump’s sexism seem to have no problem glossing over Hillary’s well known smear campaigns of Bill’s accusers… and Hillary has done this for three decades now, smearing his accusers like Lewinsky, whom she called a ‘narcissistic loony toon.’ His affair with Gennifer Flowers whom she called “trailer trash”, and said she’d “crucify her” in an interview with Esquire in 1992 – Bill admitted to that affair also.

            I think she’s wholly corrupt and untrustworthy.

            ( Before the pro-Hilary brigade go mad, let me say, I do not support Trump, thanks.
            Absolutism is for simpletons. )

          5. The Lady Vanishes

            Clampers, one of the things, inconsequential perhaps in themselves, but which add up together to a very unsavoury picture, is the way in which the mainstream media have shown a consistent pro-Hillary bias.

            People tend to get suspicious of candidates who seem to have won the election in advance (particularly when they are a candidate who wasn’t even good enough to get selected the previous time). They also tend to get suspicious when there are attempts to shame a rival candidate into resigning for a lesser version of the same thing that their favoured candidate’s husband and former president had a history of. Neither of the above seems fair. Trump is an unattractive candidate but no less so than Hillary. Why was he almost universally pulled to pieces by the mainstream media after the Billy Bush recording (Bush: another name that keeps coming up in corrupt, creepy, sleazy stories)? And why, if the press is so concerned about women, aren’t they following up on the Clinton/Hillary/Epstein stories? I see Broadsheet’s coverage of the non-MSM stories as a way to redress this balance. I suspect these stories aren’t exactly right, some of them may even be spoonfed as false flags, but why aren’t the MSM looking into and comprehensively disproving them?

          6. ReproBertie

            “They also tend to get suspicious when there are attempts to shame a rival candidate into resigning for a lesser version of the same thing that their favoured candidate’s husband and former president had a history of.”

            Since you feel confident enough to tell us how people tend to react to this sort of thing happening I presume you have other examples of this exact scenario happening, right?

          7. The Lady Vanishes

            Definitely not Melania, lol! And not a Trump fan either, see my comment below. He’s only marginally less scary than Hillary. And not anti-Democrat – if they had a candidate less scary than Trump, I’d probably be voting for them.

          8. Mr Reality

            +1 f lawless that is exactly what happened, a DOJ female official with ties to Clinton foundation was put in charge of overseeing the email scandal case, no surprise that it amounted to nothing when all avenues led to complete treason, her foundation which is propping up her campaign received Saudi oil money for carpet bombing Yemen and Syria

          9. SOQ

            @ The Lady Vanishes

            I have no idea if Hillary has done what you claim but this is the most powerful job in the world and you can be pretty certain that someone who is ‘nice’ would never get it in the first place. You would have to be a hard nut to climb that high and definitely not the sensitive type.

            Hillary critics like yourself, the real ones rather than morons who just shout corrupt, express vague unease and dislike but no actual proof because if there was proof she would have been nailed a long time ago because circumstantial in usually mainly conjecture.

            Meanwhile Trump critics have proof by the bucket load which is ignored because he wasn’t in politics. That is a huge double standard and a very dangerous blindside. And let’s not forget what is underneath him. Never mind sharia law, some of those extreme evangelists would impose amish law if they got their way.

            But, when all is said and done, it comes down to exactly the same thing as if you were interviewing someone for a job. You don’t have to like the person but are they competent? Can Hillary do it? Yes she can. Can Trump do it? Well if you scrutinise his past in the same way as Hillary’s, I honestly cannot see how you can say yes. He is an absolute train wreck which even half of his own party won’t support.

            But my point was about the dishonest and at times downright offensive campaign being waged against Hillary which is not based on facts or reason. It is mudslinging at the lowest level on the basis that if enough is thrown, some of it will stick. And the Republicans have been doing the exact same thing since Bill first took office.

            And they are going to loose again.

          10. f_lawless

            @SOQ You seem to have forgotten (or or unaware?) that Clinton bears a large brunt of the responsibility in turning an entire nation ( Libya ) into a failed state when she pushed for invasion while acting as Secretary of State. Millions of lives devastated; at the mercy of murderous jihadis, exacerbating the refugee crisis into Europe, etc.
            Either she didn’t learn any lessons from the disasterous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or else the consequence of the terrible human suffering wasn’t an important enough factor for her.
            On the scale of things, I think that towers over any scandals Trump has been associated with and makes her utterly unfit for office

  2. Sheik Yahbouti

    BREXIT, BREXIT, BREXIT, Ah, it feel so good! It would be even better to be paid just for endlessly repeating it, like so many lazy journos.

  3. Clampers Outside

    “Danone Activia – I call it being in the moment”

    LOL… it’s a feckin’ yoghurt, not a mindulness session :)

    “…being in the movement” …a bowel movement, would have made more sense. Christ on a bike, lifestyle advertising is a joke sometimes… most times :)

    1. Boy M5

      That’s all it is these days. Almost no products are sold based on their unique properties. If you have your period, it’s the ideal time to go sky-diving in white knickers. If you switch electricity suppliers, you become a fantastic looking family with a golden retriever. If you drink Coke Zero, you are an unstoppable art gallery owner.

  4. Coppélia

    Who cares whether Hilary is a “nice” person or is lacking in charisma. She isn’t running for Miss bloody World. Those advocating for political change should consider change a process rather than a product. Trump trots out lies as if it was some kind of manifesto. He doesn’t support the working man,( cheap labour, anti- union) . He denies climate change, is racially divisive and is a chauvinistic orangutan. He also has NO experience . He is a “personality”, a product of reality TV. He is certainly not up to the task of dealing with the sober administrative and legislative side of politics
    Am guessing all the BS trumpers &trumpettes who just loooove the cult of a personality would also have no issue with Johnny the Quack performing open heart surgery on them, rather than Johnny the Surgeon.

      1. The Lady Vanishes

        Perhaps a better way of putting it is that she does not seem empathetic or trustworthy.

        I agree we don’t need any of the fake twee empathy required of Miss World candidates but we do require a certain amount of human feeling and connection. It’s a very low threshold, but she palpably lacks it.

        Even if we apply pure logic, and disregard instinct entirely, the question still arises: what about all those Clinton scandals, never satisfactorily explained by her? Much more serious than Trump’s ‘scandals’, because they relate to the political system, and the very office she’s seeking to climb into.

        There is in fact a cult of personality around Hilary; it’s the cult of cold, clinical politicking, of ruthless ambition, of how women can wear the pantsuit too – and cardigans – I saw a fangirl tweet that ‘no one can wear a cardigan like Hillary’.

        I can’t speak for the others who are critical of Hillary, who would like to see explored stories about her that don’t appear in the mainstream media. All I can say is that, for me, being anti-Hillary is not necessarily being pro-Trump in the sense of admiring him, but rather being pro-Trump in the sense of accepting him as the better of two bad lots, and because of concerns about what may lie beneath the media’s failure to criticise Hillary as thoroughly as they have criticised him.

          1. Sheik Yahbouti

            I reckon its because there are only twenty four hours in a day, and Mrs. Clinton could spend the entire of those hours trying to explain utter “b**locks”, if she was stupid enough to do so – and they still wouldn’t be satisfied.

          2. f_lawless

            ah yes, I find a lengthy listening to Connie Francis does wonders to soothe the old cognitive dissonance!

          3. SOQ

            You are advocating that a reality TV star plays space invaders with the most dangerous weapons on this planet.

            Why are the Christian evangelists who believe in the rapture the only group within the Republican party solidly supporting Trump again?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie