DNC Day 3. Biden, Obama, and Trump Jumps the Shark

Written By: - Date published: 8:13 am, July 28th, 2016 - 88 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, us politics - Tags: , ,

The third day of the Democratic Party’s conference in the liberty city.

Key speakers include outgoing Veep Joe Biden and POTUS Barack Obama.  With Hillary Clinton now confirmed as the Presidential candidate, the conference moves fully into campaign mode. Expect less bother from the Bernie supporters and more attacks on the banker’s friend and lifelong 1%er  Donald Trump.

The most intriguing and potentially damaging speech for the right may come from Republican Michael Bloomberg, who will endorse Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of the Donald, he’s made a speech in which he weirdly asks Russia to spy on the USA. He sort of invites China and bedroom hackers round the world to do the same. Not surprisingly, the Democrats have seized on his loose words, claiming he is the first Presidential candidate in history to invite a foreign power to spy on an American citizen. Indeed, to spy on the then Secretary of State.

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,”

“This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

– Jake Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s senior policy adviser.

We’d all hate for Trump to be taken away in handcuffs by the FBI, right? But, if he is in Vladimir Putin’s pocket, as has been claimed, that might just happen.

Presidential running mate Tim Kaine is up around lunchtime. Joe Biden is on around 2PM, Obama shortly afterwards.

Edit: Added live video link.

It’s healing time, it’s hope time, its Hillary time! – Rev Jesse Jackson

 

88 comments on “DNC Day 3. Biden, Obama, and Trump Jumps the Shark ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    28 July 2016 at 8:32 am

    Lordie even Panetta has come out against Trump’s links to the DNC email leaks. He’s about as defence of the realm as they get over there.
    The Trump campaign’s links to Russia are generating an awful lot of smoke for there not to be fire. It’s going to pull Obama further and further into the campaign.

    Not too long before Trump will be getting the daily security briefings.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      28 July 2016 at 8:56 am

      Panetta – the Obama nomination for CIA – came out against Trump?

      Wow, quelle surprise.

      Let’s see the NSA evidence of where those DNC leaks really came from. XKEYSCORE provides precise instant tracing.

      • dukeofurl 1.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 11:20 am

        XKS tracing emails at the DNC in Washington DC, unlikely as that would be a new Watergate as they say its only for offshore
        A data download isnt email by the way, they may have just infiltrated a backup site and never went near the DNC servers.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 11:34 am

          XKS tracing emails at the DNC in Washington DC, unlikely as that would be a new Watergate as they say its only for offshore

          Link please. Bill Binnie, former technical director at the NSA (with 6,000 NSA staff) said that all these NSA capabilities were built with the purpose of being turned inwards on US citizens. Snowden provided confirmation that was also the case. Independently, other whistleblowers have shown major US internet/telco providers allowed the NSA to install snooping equipment onsite in the USA targetting domestic American citizens.

  2. adam 2
    28 July 2016 at 8:34 am

    Because the left have moved out, and away from the democrats towards the Greens.

    Yesterday was such an awesome day, may there be many more like it.

    With many more on the left moving towards a more constructive option, rather than the less of two evils. Good to see a maturity and a willingness to look at the big picture, rather than short term political distraction.

    • Bill 2.1
      28 July 2016 at 10:58 am

      As soon as Bernie sat down to negotiate with Clinton over what should be on the campaign platform, he blew it. He had no right to enter negotiations on behalf of the movement that had built around him. Clinton will, over the course of time, drop whatever concessions she made to Sanders, and Sanders will find that he no longer has a huge body of people – a movement – behind him.

      Movements work by applying unrelenting pressure. When one demand is satisfied, another comes forward. What Bernie did was define, limit and, sadly, break that momentum.

      It’s over.

      Some people will gravitate towards the Greens or whatever. Some will stay with the Democrats. But “the Bern” is scattered and dying embers now.

      • dukeofurl 2.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 11:25 am

        “He had no right to enter negotiations”- really ? He must obey the hive.

        Sanders has had a lifetime in ‘left of democratic politics’ and his previous comments about his experience arent pretty.
        After there is an official Green candidate to vote for, let them go there

        • Bill 2.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 12:21 pm

          Obviously no comprehension of the dynamic at the intersection between the structurally fluid politics of movements and more structurally crystalised politics of current orthodoxy.

          What you have said – and it’s wrong headed – is that a movement only articulates one voice, or one concern (a hive mind), and then implied that it’s perfectly reasonable and proper for one person- or maybe a committee – to determine the relative merits or worthiness of that singular voice and to use it as a bargaining chip.

          But movements aren’t one voice – they are many voices and not always speaking in unison or even necessarily in agreement. And in that case, it’s not just that your suggestion of a hive mind is ludicrous, but any suggestion that it’s in any way proper or acceptable for one person – or a committee – to distill those multiple voices or demands down to a ‘contained narrative’ that then gets put on some bargaining table is fairly vile.

          If you can’t see the widespread disempowerment that’s implicit to that scenario nor discern that the seeds of authoritarianism it sows, then I dunno – maybe resurrect the Socialist Unity Party or something and revel in the power that comes from stamping hard on political diversity or multi-faceted expressions of solidarity in the interests of establishing so-called unity.

          • dukeofurl 2.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 1:46 pm

            What Sanders ‘movement’ – he was running personally for the democratic nomination for President.
            Its was all about ‘Vote for me ‘. he raised $182 million for HIS campaign , not some movement
            http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/2016-bernie-sanders-fundraising-hillary-clinton/

            He didnt have much by the way of people running for office under’ his movement’

            You seem to think he was running his own political party, the last one to do well was George Wallaces American Independent Party in 1968 and got 46 electoral votes, but that was under a vile racist platform

            • Bill 2.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 2:43 pm

              I understand perfectly well that he was running for his personal nomination. I also understand that he was surfing a wave that welled up from non-establishment waters as it were. He could have – should have – preserved the potency of the latter when he failed in his personal quest to become the next president.

              Unfortunately, it seems he didn’t understand the nature of the beast that was raising him up and propelling him in his personal quest – and as a consequence, he inadvertently took the legs out from under it.

              • dukeofurl …
                28 July 2016 at 5:11 pm

                Have you see the results when Sanders stood for an ‘alternative movement’
                1970 Senate election Vermont
                Bernie Sanders (Liberty Union) – 1,571 (2.2%)
                1972 Vermont Governor
                Bernie Sanders (LU) – 2,175 (1.1%)
                1974 Senate election Vermont
                Bernie Sanders (LU) – 5,901 (4.13%)
                1976 Vermont Governor election
                Bernie Sanders (LU) – 11,317 (6.1%)
                1981 Burlington Mayor
                Bernie Sanders (I) – 4,330 (43.43%) Won
                1986 Vermont Governor
                Bernie Sanders (I) – 28,418 (14.4%)
                1988 Vermont Congressman
                Bernie Sanders (I) – 90,026 (37.5%) ahead of democrat
                1990 Vermont Congressman
                Bernie Sanders (I) – 117,522 (56%) Won
                every 2 years till
                2006 Vermont Senate election
                Bernie Sanders (Independent) – 171,638 (65.4%) – no democrat standing
                Peter Diamondstone (LU) – 801 (0.3%) His old movement

                2016 Democratic presidential primary
                Bernie Sanders – 12,351,297 (42.69%)

                Hes taking his time about his ‘movement’ since he left the LU far left group. In the US system Green would be the best match but hes not interested.

      • Andre 2.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 11:33 am

        Or they could stay with Bernie and help him make sure the Democratic stick to the commitments to progressive change they’ve put in the platform.

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 11:35 am

          Why stay with a party you can’t stomach the ethics of any more.

          • Andre 2.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 11:49 am

            Because with the system the USA has now and for the foreseeable future, stomping off in a tantrum because you didn’t get everything you want achieves either precisely nothing (if you’re lucky) or a big step backwards (as in 2000). Whereas gritting your teeth, staying in and doing the hard yards like Bernie (and Elizabeth and others) can achieve real change.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 12:10 pm

              Hi Andre, I hope that you and everyone like you keeps attacking non-Clinton supporters as childish and immature; it really helps the likability ratings of your favoured candidate

              as for 2000, the Democrats lost that race all by themselves many times before Florida, just as they have lost it this time by ditching Bernie Sanders who would have easily beaten Trump in November, in favour of absolutely disliked Hillary Clinton.

              So don’t scapegoat the rest of us for the Democratic Party’s shite short sighted decisions.

  3. Wayne 3
    28 July 2016 at 8:34 am

    Trump! unbelievable that he has said that. But will it even hurt him? Going on the past perhaps not.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1
      28 July 2016 at 8:39 am

      What’s unbelievable about it from your point of view: it’s precisely the sort of thing the Lusk/National strategy of deliberately poisoning the well is supposed to achieve.

    • AmaKiwi 3.2
      28 July 2016 at 9:37 am

      A Democrat who is not too close to Clinton should ask the Russians if they can get a copy of Trump’s tax returns.

  4. ianmac 4
    28 July 2016 at 8:41 am

    “Speaking of the Donald, he’s made a speech in which he weirdly asks Russia to spy on the USA….”
    A terrible thing for him to have said but for the large body of anti-Clintons this would seem to be a good idea. Many would think it wrong for those potentially “criminal” emails to have been disappeared.
    Irregular by protocol but popular in a cut-throat battle?

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    28 July 2016 at 9:00 am

    1) The DNC and Clinton campaign are trying to push the Russian angle because they are afraid there will be more critical email leaks coming up.

    2) Read below. The Clintons accepted US$2.35M in Russian money in order to sell out US strategic resources to a Russian corporation.

    The Russian angle is going to blow back very hard on Clinton.

    Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

    And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    • dukeofurl 5.1
      28 July 2016 at 11:36 am

      “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state.”

      So Clinton hypnotised 5 other powerful secretaries to get the deal done ? For something like this most probably had deputies who attended the meetings and handled the paperwork, as the principals are busy people.

      BTW I thought you rubbished any thing from the NYT when it used as a reliable source by others. Have you seen the light ?

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 11:46 am

        Just remind me – how many of those heads you mentioned are Democratic political appointees?

        I think that answers your question (and also the question of why the FBI and DOJ didn’t indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling and losing classified information).

        One other thing – now that the IRS has started an investigation of the Clinton Foundation, I won’t really need to add any more comments for a while.

        • dukeofurl 5.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 1:57 pm

          The classified material thing was a minor event. 3 emails out of 2000 which had “C” in the margins meaning ‘confidential’. Nothing was else was marked classified or even secret at the time Clinton saw it.

          No IRS investigation of Clinton Foundation either – you should check these things, a month back it was FBI investigation Clinton Foundation, but rust never sleeps.
          Yes lots of people are screaming investigate, but nothing has come of it

          “IRS Commissioner John Koskinen wrote to House Republican Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee) to inform her that the issue had been “forwarded” to the IRS “Exempt Organization Examinations” program in Dallas.
          “This program considers all referrals and will send you a separate acknowledgement when it receives your information,” Koskinen wrote in a letter dated July 22..”

          I could sent a letter to IRD asking them to investigate you ( I wont), but it doesnt mean they are or will do anything about it.

          But of course when nothing happens, it just means they are corrupt lap dogs of the Clinton cabal, so go figure

  6. Andre 6
    28 July 2016 at 9:08 am

    What Trump might do with the NSA’a powers if he gets the chance…

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12298664/trump-dnc-hacking-power

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      28 July 2016 at 9:30 am

      Obama and the Dems have been a massive supporter of the military industrial surveillance complex and opponent of intelligence whistleblowers, supporting the locking up of many of them (like Chelsea Manning, who recently tried to take her own life) for decades.

      Under his watch the journalists of whole news services have been spied on, and the personal business of citizens of countries like NZ are an open book. Under Obama there have also been multiple cases of the IRS being used to target political enemies.

      So bitch about what Trump might or might not do; Obama helped build the machinery and use it.

  7. riffer 7
    28 July 2016 at 9:35 am

    The irony in Trump’s comment on hacking was probably lost on the majority of people. When I heard it I laughed. I’d read it as more of a commentary on Obama’s power as President and alluding to President’s not having that much power at all. Probably not a good thing to say though, as everyone seems to take stuff so literally.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      28 July 2016 at 9:47 am

      My mates and I figured out a long time ago that Trump spends at least half his day trolling the media with these comments. Some of them are really quite clever when you read into them.

      Banning Muslims coming into the USA ‘until we’ve figured out a plan to deal with Islamic terrorism’ for instance. The liberal media flies into a frenzy at the first half the sentence and doesn’t notice that Trump already has is plan to ‘deal with Islamic terrorism’ i.e. the travel ban would never happen.

      Very funny.

  8. Siobhan 8
    28 July 2016 at 10:56 am

    ‘ In what looks to be an embarrassing gaffe, the candidate of the 1%ers has requested help from Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails”..that bit confused me, I’m thinking why would Hilary call for the Russians to hack her emails…

    • te reo putake 8.1
      28 July 2016 at 11:02 am

      The evil of two lessers, as Bill Andersen used to call the American two party system! But we shouldn’t forget that Trump comes from wealth and privilege and is determined to make sure the inequality gap between most Americans and the 1% continues to grow.

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 11:08 am

        Donald Trump has announced that he will re-open, re-negotiate or throw out NAFTA in his first year as POTUS.

        That will lead to a resurgence in US manufacturing and a drop in cheap imports from Mexico and Canada.

        I can see the working class getting behind that. And they are.

      • Siobhan 8.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 11:14 am

        Do you think Goldman Sachs. Morgan Stanley. Deutsche Bank. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. UBS Wealth Management. Monsanto etc etc etc hired Hilary to give them speeches about how she believes in equality and deconstructing a system that created the one percent??
        How very open minded of them.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 11:23 am

          I think Trump should release his tax returns, and Clinton should release the text of her highly paid speeches to the big banks.

          • dukeofurl 8.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 11:49 am

            release the text ?, thats so 1990s.

            Heres a video, if you bothered to look it up

            Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women: Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs
            https://youtu.be/0lKlJ3Ed4fQ

            “The event featured a keynote address from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the business case for empowering women to ensure future economic growth.”

            Im sure it will check all the boxes about the Clintons and Wall St and their plan to enrich the 1% further.

        • te reo putake 8.1.2.2
          28 July 2016 at 11:29 am

          Did you read the speeches, Siobhan? Perhaps they did indeed touch on equality etc. I reckon you should probably do some research, rather than make assumptions.

          Whatever you feelings about Clinton, she has at least a lifelong record of service to her nation. We might quibble about the quality, but the other guy has a lifelong record of privilege, wealth and bigotry.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.2.1
            28 July 2016 at 11:38 am

            Interesting. How does accepting US$2.35M of Russian money into the Clinton Foundation around the time she was signing off on deals to sell 20% of US uranium reserves to the Russians count as “service to her nation.”

            • te reo putake 8.1.2.2.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 11:39 am

              How does cherry picking disprove a wider point? 🙂

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2016 at 11:42 am

                I can give you a dozen more data points on Clinton taking millions in foreign money in what you call “service to her nation” if you like. Lot’s of cherries where this one came from.

                But I won’t need to because Trump is going to bring all of this up over and over again in the next 4 months.

                • te reo putake …
                  28 July 2016 at 11:48 am

                  Still cherry picking and irrelevant to her service to the nation. Her entire adult life has been one of service. That’s way different to how your 1%er hero has lived his life.

                  • Siobhan …
                    28 July 2016 at 11:56 am

                    Her entire life has been one of service. The question is, service to who?? The people who pay her would seem a good starting point.

                    Hilarys life is like a box of cherries.

                    • Cemetery Jones …
                      28 July 2016 at 3:47 pm

                      I guess that makes Vince Foster one of the squishier cherries in the box…

                    • McFlock …
                      28 July 2016 at 3:54 pm

                      Jeez, that old lie again.

                      Still, goes to show that conspiracists have been profiting off straightforward deaths for decades, without regard to any of the real people involved.

                  • One Two …
                    29 July 2016 at 1:16 am

                    “Irrelevant to her service to the nation”…

                    Comedy Gold!

          • Siobhan 8.1.2.2.2
            28 July 2016 at 11:41 am

            I would love to read the speeches..do you have a link??
            I’m sure Hilary has released them as they would totally convince us all of her sincerity.

            • te reo putake 8.1.2.2.2.1
              28 July 2016 at 11:43 am

              They have google on computers now, so you can, as I suggested, do some research, if you’re that exercised about the matter.

              • Siobhan …
                28 July 2016 at 11:52 am

                SHE WILL NOT RELEASE THE SPEECHES.

                Do you not understand??

                “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”..that Hillarys statement. And yes, I Googled that. As a Hilary fan maybe you should Google facts from sites other than weloveHillary.com.

                And yes, I get ‘exercised’ about you know, facts.

                • te reo putake …
                  28 July 2016 at 11:56 am

                  Thanks for clarifying! You might have said that at the start and saved us both some time we’ll never get back. I’m really not as up with right wing Hillary hate memes as some people might think 😉

                  • dukeofurl …
                    28 July 2016 at 12:03 pm

                    Hillary Speech Video at Goldman Sachs
                    https://youtu.be/0lKlJ3Ed4fQ

                    Siobhan, you never looked did you, just repeated the ‘story’

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 July 2016 at 12:08 pm

                      Clinton doubles down on refusing to release bank speech transcripts

                      Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is doubling down on a strategy of not releasing transcripts of speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other investment banks.

                      Clinton has refused to release any of the transcripts in the face of a pressure campaign from rival candidate Bernie Sanders, who has relentlessly attacked the Democratic front-runner as being too closely tied to Wall Street.

                      “She’s not going to basically create a standard that isn’t applied to anyone else in this race,” said one longtime Clinton ally and confidante of her position on releasing the transcripts.

                      The issue has been an effective line of attack from Sanders, who has closed the gap with Clinton in national polls.

                      It also appears to have hurt Clinton, who has seen her favorability rating in polls drop below 50 percent. Just as bad, Clinton has seen her marks fall with Americans when they are asked whether they trust her or see her as honest.

                      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277302-clinton-doubling-down-on-transcripts

  9. Ad 9
    28 July 2016 at 11:11 am

    An interview with Trump on his view of current military and geopolitical events:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-interview.html?_r=0

    In particular he was asked what happens when NATO members get invaded but haven’t paid their financial contributions for membership.

    Haberman:
    “Can the members of NATO , including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on fulfilling our obligations …

    Trump:
    Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfil their obligations to us, the answer is yes.

    Haberman:
    And if not?

    Trump:
    Well, I’m not saying not. I’m saying, right now, there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.

    If I were in Latvia, noting what Russia did to Crimea just three years ago, I would not be reassured in its NATO treaty to defend it from Russia.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      28 July 2016 at 11:27 am

      I see you’re on this track again Ad. Tell me, why should Germany the UK, Canada and France take their people to war over Lithuania? It’s like NATO wants to set up a repeat of WW1 where illogical treatises turned a few minor niggles into a trans-European million death war.

      What’s the strategic purpose of having Latvia in NATO other than to find an excuse to put even more NATO bases on Russia’s border?

      Last question – Russia couldn’t be bothered to take over Ukraine even though it contained a whole heap of heavy industry and farm land that Russia depended on.

      Why on Earth would Russia bother with owning a small and economically backward country like Eastonia?

      If I were in Latvia, noting what Russia did to Crimea just three years ago, I would not be reassured in its NATO treaty to defend it from Russia.

      Huh? Are Latvians going to vote en masse to rejoin Russia like the Crimeans did?

      The Crimea is as part of Russia as Rhode Island is to the USA.

      • Ad 9.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 11:34 am

        I don’t presume to be an expert in international war.

        I’m pointing out that in the interview, Trump’s stated price for sustaining NATO is membership cash. I can understand the frustration of free-loading, but putting tiny countries on notice like that is a thing.

        I can only hazard a guess on your first question to be: because the signatories to NATO are committed to their international obligations to militarily protect each other.

        I have no idea about the strategic purpose of having Latvia in NATO.

        In answer to your last question about why would Russia bother with Estonia, well, probably Crimea, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and a bunch of others were asking themselves the same question. Until the tanks rolled in.

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 11:40 am

          I’ve already answered re: Crimea. Self determination is a right granted by the UN and the Crimeans chose to go with Moscow and not the neo-Nazi crowd who took over Kiev.

          Georgia. Russia can’t be bothered with Georgia either. They rolled the tanks in and rolled them back out to make a statement about not killing Russian peacekeepers.

          Azerbaijan. The west has as much business in Azerbaijan as Russia has in telling the USA what to do in Puerto Rico.

      • DoublePlusGood 9.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 12:15 pm

        “The Crimea is as part of Russia as Rhode Island is to the USA.”
        What, stolen from indigenous people?

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 12:22 pm

          Napolean wanted it; he couldn’t take it.

          NB the Kievan Rus have been all through that area since about the 8th or 9th century AD.

          And today Russia is a federation comprising dozens of different ethnic groups each of which keeps their own cultural identity and language. Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are all welcome to practice. Moscow recently opened one of the biggest Mosques in Europe.

          • dukeofurl 9.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 1:32 pm

            I think he meant the Crimean tartars who were evicted.

            The area has ruled by the remnants of The Golden Horde as the Crimean Khnate until around the 15th century when they came under loose control of the Ottoman Sultans. The area extended into southern Russia and Ukriane.
            http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Crimean_Khanate
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Khanate

            It wasnt annexed by Russia till 1783, so it had a long period under control of Golden Horde , Byazantium and The Ottomans

            • DoublePlusGood 9.1.2.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 2:00 pm

              Yeah, there’s a myriad people with historical claims to Crimea.
              I was just making a general comment about the difficulty of saying things belong to people when that is really just because of empire and conquest.

            • Cemetery Jones 9.1.2.1.1.2
              28 July 2016 at 4:00 pm

              The Khanate seized the lands around Kiev (including Crimea) when they invaded the old Kingdom of Russia in the 13th century. By then, Kiev had been a royal seat in Russia for around 500 years.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.2.1.1.3
              28 July 2016 at 4:05 pm

              A majority of Crimean tartars voted to go with Russia and against going with the neo-nazis in Kiev.

              • GregJ …
                28 July 2016 at 8:04 pm

                They didn’t CV. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars called for a boycott and the estimate is that fewer than 5% of Tatars voted in the referendum. The Tatars want to to be an autonomous republic as part of Ukraine – they want the ethnic Russians out – not surprising given the genocide carried out on the Tatars by the Soviets in 1944.

                Of course the Russians have moved to delegitimise the Mejlis by banning it this year as an “extremist organisation” – accusing it of using “propaganda of aggression and hatred towards Russia, inciting ethnic nationalism and extremism in society” (the irony is just delicious).

                I’m sure the Turkish Kurds would understand how the Tatars feel.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2016 at 10:03 pm

                  Ukraine had plenty of time to grant those Tartars autonomous status.

                  At least in Russia the Tartar language and culture will be properly protected, unlike by the neo-nazi regime in Kiev.

                  The Crimean Tartar language has also now been granted full official language status on Crimea, on par with Russian and Ukranian.

                  The resolution provides for constitutional reform that would amend several key provisions of Crimea’s basic law. Under the amended constitution, the Crimean Tatar language would be granted official status, on a par with Russian and Ukrainian in Crimea.

                  It stipulates proportional representation in future parliaments and provides for at least 20 percent of seats in the republic’s executive for Crimean Tatars. They would have guaranteed representation in the lower levels of government as well.

                  The parliament also wants to recognize as official the self-governance bodies of the Crimean Tatars, starting with the Kurultai, a general assembly of the Tatars.

                  Crimean MPs pledged to fund programs for support of the Tatar community in Crimea and repatriation of Crimean Tatars, who were deported from the peninsula by Joseph Stalin’s Soviet government in the 1940s.

                  There will also be recognition of the Tatars’ cultural impact on Crimea through the return of the original names of some geographical features such as mountains or rivers that were changed at the time of the deportation.

                  https://www.rt.com/news/crimea-tatar-rights-guarantee-122/

  10. Siobhan 10
    28 July 2016 at 11:39 am

    Does anyone know when Hilary last gave an interview to the Press??

    According to the Washington Post her first interview as the Nominee will be on Fox..https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/hillary-clinton-is-giving-her-first-interview-as-the-democratic-nominee-to-fox-news/

    • dukeofurl 10.1
      28 July 2016 at 12:11 pm

      Or NBC Meet the Press on July 31.

      or 60 minutes for CBS
      “Hillary Clinton said Republicans have created a “Hillary standard” that has contributed to the negative impression many people have of her, giving her first joint interview with her newly announced running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine.
      “I often feel like there’s the Hillary standard and then there’s the standard for everybody else,” the presumptive Democratic nominee said in the interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

      Fox News is a news channel so likely has scheduled it earlier.

  11. Enough is Enough 11
    28 July 2016 at 11:47 am

    “banker’s friend and lifelong 1%er Donald Trump”

    Trump is a 0.0001%er

    But I think you will find Hillary is closer to the bankers and owes more to Wall Street than Trump ever will

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      28 July 2016 at 12:05 pm

      The key to understanding this is that while Trump is definitely a 0.01%’er he is not a D.C. / K Street beltway insider.

      • Phil 11.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 12:57 pm

        Trump and his companies have thrown bucket loads of money at politicians since at least the 1990’s. Trump claims to have donated heavily to the McCain and Romney presidential campaigns.

        If that’s not the assessment you’re using to decide if someone’s a Washington DC insider, what is?

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 9:57 pm

          Trump has thrown money at Washington politicians before yes, but he doesn’t have his own lobbyist firms like Big Oil and Big Guns do; he doesn’t have a revolving door of senior managers who one year staff his corporations and the next year staff the White House like the big banks do.

          • ianmac 11.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 10:35 pm

            On 60 Minutes Prime this week there was an interview with Trump and his running mate. Terrifying lack of wisdom, relevance or connectedness. When he had quoted back to him each of his declarations, not one could he explain or justify.
            God Save America.
            Must be next week:”60 Minutes Prime Monday visits racially segregated communities after recent Police shootings of black Americans. Also tonight the first joint interview with Hillary Clinton and her running mate Tim Kaine. PGR”

            • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 10:40 pm

              Well, Clinton and Kaine should have no problem smashing Trump and Pence at the ballot box, then.

  12. McFlock 12
    28 July 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Trump is a professional shark-jumper, entertaining the crowds with jumps over bigger and meaner sharks.

    Sooner or later folks will get bored with shark jumping. Preferably sooner, but who knows…

  13. save nz 13
    28 July 2016 at 1:27 pm

    The US are allowed to spy on their own citizens as well as the rest of the world, the SIS can spy on the NZ citizens and our neighbours – so maybe there will not be the outrage about Trump asking Russia to spy… the US people are already mass surveilled….

  14. Morrissey 14
    28 July 2016 at 7:15 pm

    Actually, the only “shark-jumping” here was by the hapless Clinton hit squad campaign team. Nobody with an IQ above room temperature believes anyone other than a DNC insider leaked those emails; the Democratic establishmen’s hysterical attempt to deflect attention from Madame Mao’s turpitude is analagous to the National Party’s rage after one of Nicky Hager’s books is published.

    It was the blackest of black comedy to witness the likes of professional liar and dissident-persecutor Lyin’ Leon Panetta talking darkly about “treason” after Trump’s playful exhortation to the Russians to release the 30,000 missing Madame Mao emails.

    As horrible as Trump is, by the way, he’s a choirboy compared to Panetta….

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/leon_panettas_explicitly_authoritarian_decree/

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      28 July 2016 at 7:34 pm

      Voters in Panetta’s local district rated him as a real nice, honest guy, a model representative of the people. But he sold out his soul hard after he got his White House appointment.

    • ianmac 14.2
      28 July 2016 at 9:59 pm

      Yes Morrissey. Remember how the Dirty Tricks book was not about the issues raised, according to National fans, but the way that the information was obtained. They refused to read Nicky’s book because it was “stolen” info!
      So in the Democrat’s world it is the mystery of who and how the emails were obtained that matters, and not the substance of the issues.
      Tricky?

    • swordfish 14.3
      29 July 2016 at 12:02 am

      Julian Assange on Democracy Now

      AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Robby Mook citing experts saying the DNC emails were leaked by the Russians. You were the one who released these 20,000 emails, Julian Assange. Where did you get them?

      JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, what’s not in that clip there by Robby is that, just afterwards, he was asked by Jake Tapper, “Who are these experts? Can you name them?” The answer was no, a refusal to name the experts. But we have seen one of the “experts”, so-called “experts”, that the Democratic Party is trying to base its incredible conspiracy theory on about WikiLeaks. And that is this—what we jokingly refer to as the “NSA dick pic guy”. He’s a former National Security Agency agent who started to produce conspiracy theories about us in 2013, when we were involved in the Edward Snowden rescue, as a means to try and undermine the Snowden publications, subsequently embroiled in some amateur pornography scandal. That’s why they don’t want to name their experts, because they are people like this.

      In relation to sourcing, I can say some things. A, we never reveal our sources, obviously. That’s what we pride ourselves on. And we won’t in this case, either. But no one knows who our source is. It’s simply speculation. It’s, I think, interesting and acceptable to speculate who our sources are. But if we’re talking about the DNC, there’s lots of consultants that have access, lots of programmers. And the DNC has been hacked dozens and dozens of times. Even according to its own reports, it had been hacked extensively over the last few years. And the dates of the emails that we published are significantly after all, or all but one—it’s not clear—of the hacking allegations that the DNC says have occurred.

  15. Ad 15
    28 July 2016 at 9:50 pm

    Lots of fun here.