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.
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:
Sophisticated, sadistic cruelty toward victims. This the most typical feature. Cruelty
in such persons usually can diagnosed from pretty young age. On of the most telling symptom is sadistic
cruelty to animals in young age.
Attempts to isolate victim. That includes
The cold shoulder
Stonewalling -- Refusing to communicate and forming cliques to maintain this "excommunication" mode.
Sulking, or similar "passive aggressive" tricks.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Rationalization: This is an excuse that aggressor is making to justify his
reprehensible actions.
Diversion: Changing the subject is classic example of diversion.
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.
Covert intimidation: Find a weak spot and try to push on them
Guilt-tipping: This is a classic trick: to pass the blame for own mistakes,
actions or inactions on you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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."
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:
Charming the victim. Dr. Stout believes it is a primary characteristic of a sociopath.
The intense charm of people who have no conscience, has been observed by researchers and commented
on by countless victims. In corporate environment it is usually directed mostly up and represents
typical "kiss up, kick down" pattern also found is male authoritarians
According to the book "Snakes in Suits - When sociopaths Go To Work" by Dr. Robert
Hare and Dr. Paul Babiak, one of the most effective skills sociopaths
use to get the trust of people is their ability to charm them. Some sociopaths lay
the charm on too thick, coming across as glib, superficial, and unconvincing. However, the truly
talented ones have polished their ability to charm people into an art, priding themselves on their
ability to present a fictional self to others that is convincing, taken at face value, and difficult
to penetrate. One must always keep in mind that the charm, like manipulation in general, can be very
subtle.
The components of this "psychopathic charm" is difficult to define. But you can easily see it
in movies that depict such individuals. Women who have a closely related set of traits, but without
personal fearlessness, courage and ability to handle stress typical for sociopaths are grouped under
the label
Histrionic personality disorder. The researchers of this disorder proposed a useful mnemonic
that makes it easier remember the behavioral characteristics that are somewhat typical for sociopathic
charm. Of couse this is simplification, but still is a useful symplification. This mnemonic phrase
is "PRAISE ME":
Provocative (or seductive) behavior; early and repeated attempts to breach the personal
distance while not being acquainted for a long time. Often on the first meeting.
Relationships are presented as more intimate than they actually are. "We are friends,
aren't we" trick. "We are adult people, aren't we?" trick. "Tell me what you expect of a woman
in bed?".
Attention-seeking behaviour, especially efficient when it comes along with physical
beauty. Physical beauty is the trait that makes sociopath so dangerous, as it disarm people.
Direct and confident body language signals their interest in you.
Influence others and adapts to them seamlessly. They listen attentively, ask simple
"ice-breaking" questions. Smile, nod, and occasionally offer commentary like "Uh-huh" or
"Yeah." Ask follow up questions as well. Ask for clarification or further details on stories and
personal information.
Speech style is somewhat exaggerated, emotionally elevated with the goal to impress;
lacks details, especially in their biography.
Make-up, hair style, clothing, perfume, the whole physical appearance are well though
out, elegant and are used to draw attention to self. they are always dressed up, sexy
and radiate confidence.
Exaggerated emotions; theatrical behaviors. They have a sense of humor and often
make other person laugh. Many people are attracted to people with a healthy sense of humor.
Seduction as a systematic technique. They can and often use sex as a weapon. In this sense
they are very similar to male sexual predators. According to Dr. Stout sociopath as "people without
conscience" have an uncanny sense of who is vulnerable to a sexual overture.
Sex for them is a tool, and they use it to achieve their goals without any hesitation.
But seduction is not limited to sexual relationships; sociopaths can seduce others with promises
of promotion, money, control and power, not only sex.
"Black and white" thinking, instability
in relationships including marriage, and impulsivity.
Gaslighting Gaslighting is a
common practice of abusers who attempt to convince their victims they are defective for any reason
such as making the victim more emotional, more needy or dependent. For
example, if an abusive person says hurtful things to you to cause your distress and then tries to
convince you that you are mentally unstable and starts recommending that you get professional help,
you might be in the presence of a gaslighter.
ProjectionSociopaths refuse to be held
accountable for their behavior and often assign their own behavior to their victims. For example,
a sociopath could accuse a victim of stealing when it is the sociopath himself that steals
Love bombing. The most basic human need is the need for self-esteem. Basically love
bombing is nothing more that giving someone a lot of positive attention. Pandering to their
every wish. This is the technique that has its origin in cults methods of attracting members. The
expression has also been used to describe the tactics used by pimps to control their victims,
as well as the behavior of an abusive narcissists who tries to win the confidence of a victim. According
to Wikipedia:
Love bombing is an attempt to influence a person by lavish demonstrations of attention and
affection. The phrase can be used in different ways. Members of the Unification Church of the
United States (who reportedly coined the expression) use or have used it to convey a genuine expression
of friendship, fellowship, interest, or concern.[1] Critics of cults use the phrase with the implication
that the "love" is feigned and that the practice is psychological manipulation in order to create
a feeling of unity within the group against a society perceived as hostile.[2] In 2011 clinical
psychologist Oliver James advocated a form of love bombing in his book Love Bombing: Reset
Your Child's Emotional Thermostat, as a means for parents to rectify emotional problems in
their children.[3]
The expression "love bombing" was coined by members of the Unification Church of the United
States in the 1970s.[4] In 1978 Sun Myung Moon, the founder and then leader of the Unification
Church, said:
Unification Church members are smiling all of the time, even at four in the morning. The
man who is full of love must live that way. When you go out witnessing you can caress the
wall and say that it can expect you to witness well and be smiling when you return. What face
could better represent love than a smiling face? This is why we talk about love bomb; Moonies
have that kind of happy problem.
Psychology professor Margaret Singer popularized the concept.[1] In her 1996 book, Cults in
Our Midst, she writes:
As soon as any interest is shown by the recruits, they may be love bombed by the recruiter
or other cult members. This process of feigning friendship and interest in the recruit
was originally associated with one of the early youth cults, but soon it was taken up by a
number of groups as part of their program for luring people in. Love bombing is a coordinated
effort, usually under the direction of leadership, that involves long-term members' flooding
recruits and newer members with flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually nonsexual
touching, and lots of attention to their every remark. Love bombing - or the offer of instant
companionship - is a deceptive ploy accounting for many successful recruitment drives.
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.
The entrapment of the victim. Often the entrapment of the victim goes in several, overlapping
phases:
Assessment. During the assessment phase, the sociopath is able to determine a potential
victim's weak points( see Chapter 4 of the book "Snakes in Suits", Dr. Hare and Dr. Babiak), especially
the moral values, insecurities and weaknesses. Being as astute observers of human behavior, the
sociopath will then subtly test the the victim inner strengths in order to find a better way to
exploit or intimidate you into submission. According to the book the four messages that the sociopath
often try to project on the assessment phase are
I like who you are;
I am just like you;
Your secrets are safe with me;
Manipulation. Once the sociopath has identified weaknesses of the victim, the manipulation
phase begins. During the manipulation phase, a sociopath may create a persona or mask,
specifically designed to 'work' for his or her target.
A sociopath will lie to gain the trust of their victim. A sociopath's lack of empathy and guilt
allows them to lie with ease - "they don't see the value of telling
the truth unless it will help get them what they want". They are usually compulsive
liars, actors who all their life are wearing some kind of fake personality.
Seduction. They use the same techniques as male sexual predators trying to condition
the victim by shaking their moral norms and convictions, getting them drunk, or putting them in
situation with few or no path to escape.
Blaming the victim. They never accept responsibility
for anything bad that happened. It is always somebody else fault.
Using rage as a sharp weapon (See Borderline
Rage ; it is not spontaneous -- while it is a "natural emotion" it is consciously controlled
and used as a sharp weapon"
Constant lying and
perfect mimicry
to the expectation of the victim. It is important to understand
that for a sociopath the stable personality does not really exist. They are natural
actors who play different characters all their life. Everything including current
personality is fake and built on the net of lies, carefully woven together to entrap you. Each personality
they present is actually a role they play, a mask, one of many, custom-made by the sociopath to fit
your particular psychological needs and expectations. It does not reflect the true personality --
the mean and brutal sociopathic personality -- that lies beneath. A sociopath lie and wear
especially constructed mask (fake persona) to gain the trust of their victim. They are
usually compulsive liars, perfect cheters, actors who all their life are wearing some kind of fake
personality. Dealing with a compulsive or pathological liar is very difficult thing to do.
A compulsive liar will resort to telling lies, regardless of the situation. Again, everyone lies
from time to time (see when lovers lie), but for a compulsive liar, telling lies is routine. It becomes
a habit—a way of life. Simply put, for a compulsive liar, lying becomes second nature. (Compulsive
Lying - Truth About Deception) See also:
Courage under fire. In high tension
situations, that happens when police is on the scene or during court proceeding, they typically maintain
their cool, behave rationally and are not prone to panic even in the face of dangerous to them
revelations. Female sociopaths try to exploit the fact that the society has a more lenient attitude to women's transgressions
(may be except infidelity), they use their gender as a bulletproof vest in dealing with courts, police
and like. If they are attractive and charming those two traits are used to full extent possible in
such situations.
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.
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" thinkingintense 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. Inappropriateangeror 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 disorderas 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.
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
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.
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):
the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense
the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond
intellect)
the importance of "moral forces" (more than simply "morale") as opposed to quantifiable
physical elements
"friction" - the disparity between the ideal performance of units, organization or
systems and their actual performance in real world scenarios (Book I, Chapter VII)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... As the gaslighting continues, victims begin to question themselves and their judgment more and more. Michaelis says this can go on for months or even years before they realize they're being gaslighted. "People who experience gaslighting may show obsessive-compulsive symptoms because they want to constantly check themselves and recheck themselves," says Dr. Michaelis. The confidence-depleting nature of gaslighting could contribute to increased anxiety in many or all aspects of a victim's life, not only in the relationship. Many gaslighting victims berate themselves or feel the need to apologize all the time, explains Dr. Saltz. ..."
"... If you realize you're being gaslighted, the first thing you need to recognize is that a gaslighter may not be conscious of the effects of their actions, especially if they have issues with being wrong or out of control. In this case, confronting the gaslighter could work. Michaelis suggests conducting all conversations you have with the gaslighter in a recorded format, like through email or text. Then, when gaslighting occurs, tell the person what they originally said. "If they continue do deny what they said, you can supply the recorded evidence so they have a concrete understanding of what happened," says Michaelis. This method works best when confronting a friend or partner. ..."
Once in a while, it's normal to have a fleeting moment where you question your own sanity, like when you're severely
sleep deprived or
stressed out . But if a relationship leaves you constantly second-guessing
your own instincts and feelings, you may be a victim of a sophisticated form of
emotional abuse : gaslighting. Like
other types of abuse, gaslighting can happen in all sorts of relationships, including personal, romantic, and professional.
Ben Michaelis, PhD, a New York City-based clinical psychologist, has worked with victims of gaslighting. For one of his patients-we'll
call her Marie-the gaslighting began when her husband shouted another woman's name during sex. When she tried to discuss the incident
with him, he flatly denied what he'd said and told Marie she was hearing things. Marie figured she must have had too much to drink.
But then the lying continued: Marie's husband would change his alibi constantly , and when Marie questioned him, he'd say she
was acting delusional. It wasn't until almost a year later when Marie realized her husband had been hiding an affair the whole
time.
"[Gaslighting] is like someone saying the sky is green over and over again, and at first you'll be like 'no, no,'" says Gail
Saltz, MD a psychiatrist and host of the podcast The Power of Different
. "Then over time the person starts to manipulate you into saying 'I guess I can't really see what color the sky is.' It's just
this sense of unreality."
Acknowledging you're a victim of gaslighting like Marie did can be tricky at first, says Michaelis, who is the author of
Your Next Big Thing: 10 Small Steps to Get Moving and Get Happy."Initially, if someone is insisting on a reality that
is different from your own, you'll think, Why was I off that day? Was I tired? "
As the gaslighting continues,
victims begin to question themselves and their judgment more and more. Michaelis says this can go on for months or even years
before they realize they're being gaslighted. "People who experience gaslighting may show obsessive-compulsive symptoms because
they want to constantly check themselves and recheck themselves," says Dr. Michaelis. The confidence-depleting nature of gaslighting
could contribute to increased anxiety in many or all aspects of a victim's life, not only in the relationship. Many gaslighting
victims berate themselves or feel the need to apologize all the time, explains Dr. Saltz.
Gaslighting can manifest in a workplace environment as well. "Your boss may use gaslighting to hide a mistake or cover up information
they didn't mean to share," says Michaelis. "It can also be a passive-aggressive gesture used among peers who are competing."
If you realize you're being gaslighted, the first thing you need to recognize is that a gaslighter may not be conscious of
the effects of their actions, especially if they have issues with being wrong or out of control. In this case, confronting the
gaslighter could work. Michaelis suggests conducting all conversations you have with the gaslighter in a recorded format, like
through email or text. Then, when gaslighting occurs, tell the person what they originally said. "If they continue do deny what
they said, you can supply the recorded evidence so they have a concrete understanding of what happened," says Michaelis. This
method works best when confronting a friend or partner.
In professional relationships, Michaelis suggests reaching out to a third party, like human resources, which can make the confrontation
more objective. You can take this route in your personal relationships as well by enlisting a friend or family member to help.
"If you find it happening to you, be thoughtful of the person's motivations," Michaelis says. "They don't usually do it out of
pure ill-will. It usually correlates with trying to cover something up, so first try to repair the relationship if it's worth
it."
If confrontation fails and ending the relationship is an option, Dr. Saltz recommends doing so. Michaelis agrees: "All relationships
are changeable. Maybe not immediately, but they are changeable or severable if need be ," he says.
If you have to stick it out with a gaslighter, though, try to boost your confidence with the support of good friends. "If you're
having a hard time changing the situation, they can bolster your reality otherwise," says Michaelis. In a work environment, you
should also be wary of what information you share with a gaslighter . Michaelis suggests withholding personal life details with
a gaslighting co-worker or boss to protect yourself from emotional abuse in the office.
No matter which method you choose, it's important to take control of reality again, says Dr. Saltz. This involves setting limits
that stop gaslighting attempts in their tracks . For example, if your boss calls you overly sensitive when you ask, "Why won't
you let me work on big company projects?" demand true feedback rather than accepting blame on your character. "It's holding the
line for what you're wanting to achieve," Dr. Saltz says, "and not buying into accusations intended to knock down self-confidence."
Comment: Many psychiatric professionals agree that even strong, intelligent, confident, and stable people can become vulnerable
to this form of emotional manipulation. Intelligence and emotions are not the same thing and a gaslighters' key maneuver is to
prey on emotion rather than intelligence. Gaslighting is a specific, conscious, deliberate tactic of manipulation and control.
Gaslighting: An insidious form of
emotional abuseJulie Naftulin Health
Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00 UTC
Once in a while, it's normal to have a fleeting moment where you question your own sanity, like when you're severely
sleep deprived or
stressed out . But if a relationship leaves you constantly second-guessing
your own instincts and feelings, you may be a victim of a sophisticated form of
emotional abuse : gaslighting. Like
other types of abuse, gaslighting can happen in all sorts of relationships, including personal, romantic, and professional.
Ben Michaelis, PhD, a New York City-based clinical psychologist, has worked with victims of gaslighting. For one of his patients-we'll
call her Marie-the gaslighting began when her husband shouted another woman's name during sex. When she tried to discuss the incident
with him, he flatly denied what he'd said and told Marie she was hearing things. Marie figured she must have had too much to drink.
But then the lying continued: Marie's husband would change his alibi constantly , and when Marie questioned him, he'd say she
was acting delusional. It wasn't until almost a year later when Marie realized her husband had been hiding an affair the whole
time.
"[Gaslighting] is like someone saying the sky is green over and over again, and at first you'll be like 'no, no,'" says Gail
Saltz, MD a psychiatrist and host of the podcast The Power of Different
. "Then over time the person starts to manipulate you into saying 'I guess I can't really see what color the sky is.' It's just
this sense of unreality."
Acknowledging you're a victim of gaslighting like Marie did can be tricky at first, says Michaelis, who is the author of
Your Next Big Thing: 10 Small Steps to Get Moving and Get Happy. "Initially, if someone is insisting on a reality that
is different from your own, you'll think, Why was I off that day? Was I tired? " As the gaslighting continues,
victims begin to question themselves and their judgment more and more. Michaelis says this can go on for months or even years
before they realize they're being gaslighted. "People who experience gaslighting may show obsessive-compulsive symptoms because
they want to constantly check themselves and recheck themselves," says Dr. Michaelis. The confidence-depleting nature of gaslighting
could contribute to increased anxiety in many or all aspects of a victim's life, not only in the relationship. Many gaslighting
victims berate themselves or feel the need to apologize all the time, explains Dr. Saltz.
Gaslighting can manifest in a workplace environment as well. "Your boss may use gaslighting to hide a mistake or cover up information
they didn't mean to share," says Michaelis. "It can also be a passive-aggressive gesture used among peers who are competing."
If you realize you're being gaslighted, the first thing you need to recognize is that a gaslighter may not be conscious of
the effects of their actions, especially if they have issues with being wrong or out of control. In this case, confronting the
gaslighter could work. Michaelis suggests conducting all conversations you have with the gaslighter in a recorded format, like
through email or text. Then, when gaslighting occurs, tell the person what they originally said. "If they continue do deny what
they said, you can supply the recorded evidence so they have a concrete understanding of what happened," says Michaelis. This
method works best when confronting a friend or partner.
In professional relationships, Michaelis suggests reaching out to a third party, like human resources, which can make the confrontation
more objective. You can take this route in your personal relationships as well by enlisting a friend or family member to help.
"If you find it happening to you, be thoughtful of the person's motivations," Michaelis says. "They don't usually do it out of
pure ill-will. It usually correlates with trying to cover something up, so first try to repair the relationship if it's worth
it."
If confrontation fails and ending the relationship is an option, Dr. Saltz recommends doing so. Michaelis agrees: "All relationships
are changeable. Maybe not immediately, but they are changeable or severable if need be ," he says.
If you have to stick it out with a gaslighter, though, try to boost your confidence with the support of good friends. "If you're
having a hard time changing the situation, they can bolster your reality otherwise," says Michaelis. In a work environment, you
should also be wary of what information you share with a gaslighter . Michaelis suggests withholding personal life details with
a gaslighting co-worker or boss to protect yourself from emotional abuse in the office.
No matter which method you choose, it's important to take control of reality again, says Dr. Saltz. This involves setting limits
that stop gaslighting attempts in their tracks . For example, if your boss calls you overly sensitive when you ask, "Why won't
you let me work on big company projects?" demand true feedback rather than accepting blame on your character. "It's holding the
line for what you're wanting to achieve," Dr. Saltz says, "and not buying into accusations intended to knock down self-confidence."
Comment: Many psychiatric professionals agree that even strong, intelligent, confident, and stable people can become vulnerable
to this form of emotional manipulation. Intelligence and emotions are not the same thing and a gaslighters' key maneuver is to
prey on emotion rather than intelligence. Gaslighting is a specific, conscious, deliberate tactic of manipulation and control.
"... I ruined everything: dinners, conversations, evenings out, holidays - by mentioning an ex's name, getting my purse out in front of his friends or wanting to carry my own passport and money when we were overseas. ..."
"... He could be furious for days. My inappropriate behaviour had shown him up, he didn't know if he could continue being with someone like me, he could do so much better. ..."
"... I also ruined birthdays and Christmases, simply by being "too stupid and cruel" to understand what was best for him. ..."
"... Why didn't I leave sooner? Well, he was charming and my family loved him. And I was at an age where life was a blur of engagements and weddings. Well-meaning relatives would tell me that I was next. The tick-tocking sound of my biological clock got louder as the weddings made way for christenings. ..."
Nicole spent years living with a charming man, but she always seemed to be doing something wrong. Eventually she began to realise
that it wasn't her that was the problem, it was him - and when she met one of his previous girlfriends, Elizabeth, everything made
sense. Here Nicole tells her story, followed by Elizabeth.
Other people seem to manage it, sharing a life with someone, content and peaceful in each other's company. But the thought of
a relationship still terrifies me. Many years on, I still well up with panic at the mention of my ex's name - that charming man who
I feared and adored in equal measure.
A charming, beautiful, successful man had made me his. He was everything I could ever dream of. He was a high-flyer, his charisma
was magnetic and I was entranced. When I was with the charming man doors opened for us and the best tables suddenly became available.
We travelled the world for his work, staying at the best hotels and eating at the finest restaurants. He seemed to be able to charm
his way through life in any language.
But I failed him.
I ruined everything: dinners, conversations, evenings out, holidays - by mentioning an ex's name, getting my purse out in
front of his friends or wanting to carry my own passport and money when we were overseas.
He could be furious for days. My inappropriate behaviour had shown him up, he didn't know if he could continue being with
someone like me, he could do so much better.
I also ruined birthdays and Christmases, simply by being "too stupid and cruel" to understand what was best for him.
He wanted me to buy him expensive presents: "It's just £4,000, use your savings," he would say.
"But those are life savings," I replied. "I can't touch them, it's impossible. I want to make you happy but I can't afford that."
The charming man cried - I had let him down and nothing I did could make up for it.
He didn't sleep much, so neither did I. I was not allowed to "ruin his night" by going to sleep before him. If I did, he woke
me in the early hours, wanting to talk about our relationship and what I was doing wrong. I was exhausted. I felt like I was going
through life in a blur, catching sleep whenever and wherever I could. The disabled loo at work became a refuge for a lunchtime nap.
Why didn't I leave sooner? Well, he was charming and my family loved him. And I was at an age where life was a blur of engagements
and weddings. Well-meaning relatives would tell me that I was next. The tick-tocking sound of my biological clock got louder as the
weddings made way for christenings.
"... "a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief." ..."
"... The 1944 film with Ingrid Bergman is quite brilliant. It sort of defines the worst thing that one human being can do to another, short of killing them. ..."
I figured that since 'gaslighting' is a relatively new term, and although I already had a
general idea what it meant from context, it would be best to look it up. I was surprised to
learn the concept of ' gaslighting ' has been around since 1938.
"a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a
targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory,
perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying,
gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's
belief."
In America's case, gaslighting – like charity – begins at home, and the
full
force of US government efforts to convince the skeptical that America is more powerful and
influential than ever, is still kicking ass and taking names, is felt by Americans.
The 1944 film with Ingrid Bergman is quite brilliant. It sort of defines the worst thing that
one human being can do to another, short of killing them.
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
As noted yesterday,
gaslighting has often been used in the context of personal relationships to describe a manipulative person's attempts to
undermine and control their romantic partner.
In a larger context, these manipulative techniques can also be applied to our perception of the entire economy:
Questioning, belittling, discounting and undermining our experience of economic "animal spirits" and general conditions.
Overwriting our memory of the economy of the past, again by undermining, questioning and belittling our memories.
Discrediting and marginalizing our definitions of economic well-being, in favor of the manipulator's definition of our well-being.
Using authority and "experts" to disqualify and discredit dissenting views.
Denigrate and deny our lived experience of economic conditions by repeating the institutionalized authority-approved narrative
of "what actually happened."
Disorient, discredit and destroy dissent with a torrent of false statistics, false narratives, false accusations and false
claims of our errors.
As noted yesterday, gaslighting has often been used in the context of personal relationships
to describe a manipulative person's attempts to undermine and control their romantic partner.
In a larger context, these manipulative techniques can also be applied to our perception
of the entire economy:
Questioning, belittling, discounting and undermining our experience of economic "animal spirits"
and general conditions.
Overwriting our memory of the economy of the past, again by undermining, questioning and belittling
our memories.
Discrediting and marginalizing our definitions of economic well-being, in favor of the manipulator's
definition of our well-being.
Using authority and "experts" to disqualify and discredit dissenting views.
Denigrate and deny our lived experience of economic conditions by repeating the institutionalized
authority-approved narrative of "what actually happened."
Disorient, discredit and destroy dissent with a torrent of false statistics, false narratives,
false accusations and false claims of our errors.
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.
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.
"... 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. ..."
"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.
"... "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. ..."
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.
"... 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. ..."
...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.
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.")
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?
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
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..
"... 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." ..."
"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."
"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?
"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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
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. It's far past time
we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
....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.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
*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.
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.
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.
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 sociopathic 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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... 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 ..."
"... I'd actually say that endorsing Hillary very much reflects conservative ideals and Republican (party) principles. Kudos to them on maintaining their streak. ..."
> "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.
"... 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. ..."
"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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
"... 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" ..."
"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.
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.
> "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.
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.
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.
""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!
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)
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?).
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
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"……..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
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.
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.
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.
"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"
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.
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. ..."
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
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.
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.
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
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."
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. ..."
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.
Pathological Liar – All About PATHOLOGICAL LYING, Lying, Self-Deception, Types,
Classification, from Pseudologia Fantastica to Habitual Lying.
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.
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).
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;
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.
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)
"... 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." ..."
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."
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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
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).
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."
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.
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
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.
"... 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." ..."
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."
"... 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. ..."
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'.
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?
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.
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:
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis 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 to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
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 Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. 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.
