I was looking an article by Louise Mensch over on Heatstreet in which she mentions “being hacked by Russia” and I was a bit surprised to see some dyspepsia on display. Why? In spite of the many nice anti-Putin remarks, a great many sidebar “news feeds” off Heatstreet lead to Sputnik News, a Putin-fetishist Russian state propaganda site, which has always made me very suspicious. So maybe the boys at 55 Savushkina Street have been told she has finally gone too far off the reservation by supporting Hillary Clinton in spite of the friendly feeds đ I admit that Louise Mensch reminds me far too much of Arianna Huffington (but with way better legs) for me to ever really trust her.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Heatstreet represents… er… not sure reallyOctober 16th, 2016 |
 38 comments to Heatstreet represents… er… not sure really |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, âPorcupinesâ, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty FrĂ©dĂ©ric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/louise-mensch-my-mind-is-messed-up-after-taking-hard-drugs-7920094.html
Explains a lot LOL
Mensch got caught red handed soliciting for work from the Hillary Clinton campaign via the Podesta emails. This is on top of taking the Murdoch shilling to create a Never Trump mudslinging “alternative” to Breitbart for the right -Heat Shite – so you’ll occasionally see a red pill article but the site overall is a Jeb Bush style squish site.
She basically a media whore who will regurgitate any old shit for a dollar.
Well yeah, but ‘red-handed’? Was she ever actually hiding it? Seems she was always anti-Trump on the basis he is not a conservative (which indeed he is not) & is thus a disastrous Republican nominee đ
I get the feeling Louise Mensch is a household name in other parts of the world, but here in the US, even among people who are generally knowledgeable, the most common reaction to the name is “who?”
Is she generally respected elsewhere? Heat Street seems to be all over the map in terms of focus, other than despising Trump.
She is notoriously stupid – accidentally posted her own search history as evidence of her being trolled by anti-semites.
Avoid like the plague.
here’s Mensch news,
Trump, Anti-Globalism and the Anti-Semitism Slur
My favourite was when she said Theodor Herzl had to be anti-Semitic because he identified as a Zionist!
Always thought her leaving the UK for America was a British gain and American loss. The funny thing is she continues to be paid to comment on both British and American politics but clearly doesn’t know much about either. If Trump gets elected I wouldn’t blame him if he had her deported.
@newrouter,
That’s the weird part. Personally, I try not to buy into the ‘OMG, the Joooos are taking over the world!’ conspiracy theories, but when their minions in the media keep saying that Global Elites = Jews, it’s kinda hard to ignore.
The global elites also do not support the interests of the majority of people. Which is expected, I guess, and nothing really wrong with that. What is wrong is when they start colluding and subvert laws. One law for the commoners, one law for them.
Less wrong is their lobbying and use of media influence to shape the minds of the electorate. The vote for Brexit was a minor miracle. If Trump wins, it’s be a major miracle in the face of so much elite opposition that has gone against him.
The end game if the global elites do have their way? I am reminded of Mark Blyth’s warning: ‘The Hamptons is not a defensible position.’
Global Elites = Jews
Reminds me of the old joke of the Rabbi, arms outstretched, looking skywards and crying, “Lord I know you said we are the Chosen People but how about picking on someone else for a change”.
đ
Kol tuv
I regard quoting Counterpunch a bit like quoting National Enquirer.
Yeah because wanting to deport a foreign political commentator because they say mean things about you does indeed sum up the whole Trump vibe rather well, moving US political culture in the direction of Argentina.
If Hillary wins, a venal corrupt statist scumbag who cares little for the US constitution will be in the White House. If Trump wins, a venal narcissist statist scumbag who admires Putin & who cares nothing for the US constitution will be in the White House. There is no lesser evil running this time, just two somewhat qualitatively different greater evils. Another thing they both have in common is a history of giving money to members of the Democratic Party.
Well, there’s Gary Johnson who isn’t perfect, but he’s a damn sight better than anybody else in the race (even the other 3d party candidates I’ve read about).
PdeH–This:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/jack-kerwick/reckoning-time-regime/
says it better than I could.
I gave money to the Tory party in my youth. My mistake. So what?
And this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFQcZMGe4p0
maybe it is hot air. But it still smells sweeter than Clinton’s bad breath. For a candidate just to say it is remarkable.
Well, at least his declared choices for the US Supreme Court sounds as though he would like to preserve the Constitution. It’s a flimsy promise, but are you claiming you can read the man’s mind to know that he’d definitely backtrack if he wins?
The man is the very definition of a political weathervane. Do I know what he will actually do if he wins? Hell no, I very much doubt he does either. The ONLY good thing I can say about Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton. But that is the very lowest of low bars to jump over, because it is a bar lying in a shit filled gutter.
I could not care less who wins.
Hmmm, I thought Hilary was in the business of collecting money…
>I admit that Louise Mensch reminds me far too much of Arianna Huffington (but with way better legs) for me to ever really trust her.
Bang on. She is very Huffington-like, and I don’t trust her judgement.
At stake is the very legitimacy of the nation state. Trump is for; Hillary is against. Same issue as #Brexit
I think your instincts are sound Perry.
As for Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump.
Alisa is correct – Mrs Clinton is a crook. Mrs Clinton is also an ideological statist The person is both of these things as the same time – she hates rich people and she is rich (as our her supporters) and is quite sincere in her hatred. And Mrs Clinton hates people who are interested in making money – and is personally obsessed with making money, but her hatred is quite sincere.
As for Mr Trump.
If the independence of the United States of America depends on Mr Trump – well then it is at an end.
A name picked (at random) from the telephone directory could have defeated Mrs Clinton – but Mr Trump will not.
It is far worse than a kook v. a buffoon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
Alisa, October 17, 2016 at 11:16 am: I like your correction – it’s a very apt joke. đ
I suspect most commenters here have already decided on which horn of this dilemma to impale themselves. (Of this trilemma, if not voting/voting 3rd party is in your list of options.) This doesn’t seem to be preventing long comments about it, in posts both relevant and (sometimes) less so. (After all, it hasn’t stopped this one. đ Let’s see if I can write it all, ask the remaining questions I have, and then shut up.)
For me (paraphrasing the slogan that got Hillary’s husband elected), “It’s the context, stupid!” Hillary has her party and the media with her, and the middle ranks of the civil service contain far more sympathisers than enemies. Donald has the last two against him, and his party can turn on him. Given these disadvantages, he would need to be innately worse than Hillary in order to do a merely equal amount of harm. Were he merely equally bad/stupid in intention, he would achieve less harm actually. (Some argue he is less bad innately than Hillary – as has been noted, it’s a very low bar to clear.) He is also impeachable (given credible cause, some Republican senators would be quite keen), which she is not (no Democratic senator will ever vote for it), imposing an upper limit to how bad his actions can become.
If I understand Perry’s view aright, he thinks Trump will trigger seismic events in the GOP which will end in a happier state – and that this will happen quicker and more certainly if Trump loses. It’s a possible future, but if the supreme court is packed for decades with judges resolved to interpret constitutional behaviour as unconstitutional, that will create other pressures on the GOP – other possible futures.
YMMV. I can imagine having an interesting discussion with anyone planning to vote with a mental image of their fingers clamped over their nose – and a less interesting one with anyone wholly lacking that idea.
Of course, all this is water under the bridge if Trump is already toast. In the UK, the polls were 6% out in 2015 and even more adrift for Brexit. However in the UK, far fewer dead rise from their graves on election day and shamble zombie-like to the polls to vote for the left. Fewer people not lawfully in the country let alone the polling booth vote here. And when it comes to criminals voting, we are positively principled – that was one of the pre-Brexit quarrels with the EU, who wanted them to vote. And our political system does not so reward it – the seats where it can happen are the ones the left will win anyway. As against that, some Tories overcome their shyness through a feeling of virtue when they defend their choice. Shy Trumpers have more to be shy about, so who knows how many have changed their vote as against changing their willingness to say. I defer to whoever knows more.
Two final questions:
– Has anyone asked each senator and senatorial candidate whether, if President Trump commits a crime – e.g. using an illegal email server or similar – they will impeach him? The replies of Democrats might make amusing reading in this grim time. đ
– I know the US constitution’s rules on what happens if no candidate gets a majority of the electoral college. I do not know what the various state constitutions say about low turnout, plurality as against majority, etc. Is it “plurality winner takes the whole electoral college vote” in every case?
“YMMV. I can imagine having an interesting discussion with anyone planning to vote with a mental image of their fingers clamped over their nose” – or (just to be clear) planning not to vote against Hillary and not to vote against Trump, and similarly disliking that they’re not casting a vote to defeat either.
“I do not know what the various state constitutions say about low turnout, plurality as against majority, etc. Is it âplurality winner takes the whole electoral college voteâ in every case?”
If I understand your question correctly:
There is no requirement that any certain percentage of registered voters vote. If only ten voters in a state vote, the state’s electors are still assigned as per the state’s rules.
48 states have “all or nothing” rules, in which the candidate who receives the most votes statewide sees all of their own appointed electors sent on to the electors’ vote.
2 states split it up by congressional district. In each district, the candidate with the most votes in that district has their chosen district elector sent on to the electors’ vote, while the 2 electors who are considered “at large” are determined by the statewide count.
It is a system that could only have been designed by people who were either using interesting drugs, or who were somewhat brilliant. As someone who lives in a place that benefits from the anti-majoritarian bent of the process, I vote that they were somewhat brilliant.
But I wouldn’t rule out the drugs entirely.
I feel the same, JohnW, and that is probably the only positive thing I could say about Trump. However, even on that I’m afraid that he’d be of no real use – even when his heart may be in the right place, his brain seems to wonder off in other directions.
bobby b, I’m with you on “brilliant”.
Alisa, Trump is fighting the cucks, the Dems, the MSM, the intelligensia, the Globalist central banks and their many allies.
Virtually all the charges leveled against Trump have been refuted at length by Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, Chuck Johnson, Cassandra Fairbanks [a Democrat], Mike Cernovich, Project Veritas, Rebel Media, WeSearchr, Guccifer 2.0, Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, Drudge, Alex Jones, Milo, reddit, and most of all Wikileaks.
If you don’t know who these people are find out on Twitter.
[The disclosure of collusion, skulduggery and outright criminality has been a special treat! Hardly any of it has featured on Samizdata & Counting Cats who are waaay behind the curve.]
Trump will win because of the coming disclosures – did you see the O’Keefe video? [I posted it above – it’s awaiting moderation].
This has been the best election in my lifetime.
Alisa – I had to laugh at James O’Keefe’s wry tweet:
“For some reason, yesterday’s 2,315,123 view @HillaryClinton @YouTube is trending in the UK but not in the USA.”
OH, REALLY???
I wonder why that might be. LOL!
While it’s true that the Democrat Machine controls the necro-vote and likes to vote both early and often, I remember when Mrs Thatcher won her first General Election.
Regardless of the polling, I still hold out hope for a US equivalent to the “Shy Tory” phenomenon. Not because I’m all-in for Trump, but because I’m all-out (as it were) for Clinton.
Cassandra Fairbanks who was on Panorama with Paxman 2 days ago first broke this [yesterday]:
This leaves us with an open question. Is one of the most famous and respected Washington journalists, who won the Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism in 2006, a liar of epic proportions? Or is US intelligence actively manipulating coverage of the election on behalf of one of the candidates?
I dindu nuffink, honest.
I know quite well who some of these people are, which is why I’ll refrain from continuing this conversation before feelings get hurt (I know I started it – my bad :-/ )
JohnW: Sputnik news? Oh FFS. No… just… no. Even the dismal BBC is less in-the-tank for one side than the Putin-fetishist Sputnik news.
Assange silenced by Ecuador under pressure [probably financial] from dirt-bag USA.
JohnW: Sputnik news? Oh FFS. No⊠just⊠no. Even the dismal BBC is less in-the-tank for one side than the Putin-fetishist Sputnik news.
True, but that’s not the point. The point is – a dope made an error that was seized upon by a Pulitzer prize winner as evidence of horrible Trump “because Putin” while bolstering an establishment narrative calling for military intervention to rescue “Ali Akbar.”
“Assange silenced . . . “
C’mon, anybody could set up a wireless router with an enhanced antenna within six blocks of the embassy and route his stuff out. There’s way more to this story than you or we know.
That is already being arranged.
Plus, the dumps aren’t coming out of the embassy. Nothing is stopping the dumps. It’s just direct contact with JA.
Have they confiscated mobiles and laptop? We will see- shows extent of damage he’s inflicted.
In the meantime here’s part II of O’Keefe’s Vote Rigging series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
JohnW @October 18, 2016 at 10:24 pm
So…
It’s not true that Trump encouraged his girlfriend and future wife to pose nude for GQ?
It’s not true that Trump bought the site of the Trump casino in Atlantic City from Salvatore Testa, a “made man” of the Philadelphia Mob, and hired Scarf Construction (owned by Philly capo “Little Nicky” Scarfo) to work on it?
It’s not true that Trump supports the appalling Kelo v. City of New London decision?
It’s not true that during the first presidential debate, Trump let Clinton drag him into a 20 minute digression about some rude things he may have said to a beauty contestant 20 years ago?
It’s not true that Trump insinuated that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination?
(and, utterly damning by itself…)
It’s not true that until about three years ago, Trump enthusiastically praised Clinton, counted her as a good friend, and donated money to her campaigns?
(I don’t believe the conspiracy theory that Trump was put up to run by Clinton so that he could lose to her. I think his previous position on her was sincere, and reflected a complete lack of character judgment and political principle.)
And when you say that something has been refuted by Alex Jones, the crackpot’s crackpot, you’re refuting yourself.
>Itâs not true that Trump encouraged his girlfriend and future wife to pose nude for GQ?
You can’t be serious. How old are you, 12?
>Itâs not true that Trump bought the site of the Trump casino in Atlantic City from Salvatore Testa, a âmade manâ of the Philadelphia Mob, and hired Scarf Construction (owned by Philly capo âLittle Nickyâ Scarfo) to work on it?
Try doing property business anywhere in Atlantic City without involving the mob.
>Itâs not true that Trump supports the appalling Kelo v. City of New London decision?
He is a shark in shark infested waters – that is simply how you survive in a rigged market through two property recessions that wiped out major competitors – a point which he has ruefully and repeatedly pointed out.
>Itâs not true that during the first presidential debate, Trump let Clinton drag him into a 20 minute digression about some rude things he may have said to a beauty contestant 20 years ago?
I don’t care.
>Itâs not true that Trump insinuated that Ted Cruzâs father was involved in the Kennedy assassination?
That was inpsired marketing – so everyone googles Ted’s background including his loyalty and affiliation to Cruz Senior and David Barton – who are both certifiably insane.
>Itâs not true that until about three years ago, Trump enthusiastically praised Clinton, counted her as a good friend, and donated money to her campaigns?
(I donât believe the conspiracy theory that Trump was put up to run by Clinton so that he could lose to her. I think his previous position on her was sincere, and reflected a complete lack of character judgment and political principle.)
There was no conspiracy – Trump openly admits that’s how you do business in the US. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
>And when you say that something has been refuted by Alex Jones, the crackpotâs crackpot, youâre refuting yourself.
Not if Jones provides evidence that’s beyond doubt – the MSM was still boasting of Hillary’s robust health while the entire world was laughing at the video of her on Jones’ site being dragged unconscious into her vampire-mobile.
Trump is a pragmatist – he could be good, he could be bad but from as early as last year it was obviously either him or Hillary [who should be in jail] and of the two I prefer Trump.