The Guerrilla and CJ Producer on CIA Clintonistas and the Desperate Establishment vs. Trump

Hey Keith Olbermann, if we’re at war with Russia, when are you enlisting to go fight the Rooskies alongside some ‘moderate’ jihadis or ISIS in Syria?

Bipartisan BS
Bipartisan BS

13 comments

  1. They have gotten ridiculous its one step above 4chan testosterone charged 13-year olds saying, ‘Omg t3h Russkies use l33t h4xx0rs and pwn1ng us n00bs elect10n lol 111!!!one!1!’

  2. I’m laughing my head off watching Keith Olbermann in hysterics. Them are fighting words! I was expecting foam to come out. Wow! With the left like Olbermann displaying absolute extremism regarding Russia has shown that the world is upside down. This kind of anti-Russian hysterics used to be in the possession of ultra right groups a la The John Birch Society in the ’50’s. To see the left-liberal acting like this shows that we indeed live in a topsy-turvy world.

    Hey Keith do you know why Obama hasn’t declassified any information. Because there is none you schmuck!!

    1. The John Birch Society of the 1950s was far more dignified and reality based, even when they stupidly accused President Eisenhower, a patriot who decried the rising military industrial complex on his way out of the Oval Office, of being a communist dupe.

      1. To elaborate, anti-Russian and before that anti-Soviet hysteria has been with us for many many decades and this Russian/Soviet "threat" has been used over and over again to justify the arms race and to clamp down on the rights of citizens here. We’re now seeing the fruit of this old policy. Anti-Russianism/Sovietism is so part of the Anglo-American empire that I think it’s just in their DNA. They just can’t help themselves. It’s an irony seeing proponents of Cold War 2 and in support of neo-cons such as Mitch McConnell coming out and defending Trump against the bogus charges leveled against Russia. The majority of Republican politicians are really caught between a rock and a hard place. They really despise Trump and and also Russia and in their hearts they really agree with this smear campaign but they have to get behind the Republican victor or they’ll get beaten up by the Republican voters. To see the Democratic Party in general spouting vitriolic nonsense against Russia with warmongers such as McConnell opposing this is quite a spectacle. We are living in amazing times.

  3. This is serious stuff. It would only take 37 members of the Electorial College to change their vote to deny Trump his rightful office. Do I think it’s possible that there are that many nutty Democrats in the Electorial College? Yes, I do. Do I think it will happen that way? Flip a coin…

    1. Mark,

      The Democrats electors cannot change the outcome, that’s why Hillary lost. Only enough Republican electors defecting or proving faithless — which in many states they’re prohibited by law from doing — can throw the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. A commenter at John Robb (who is a very smart guy BTW)’s Global Guerrillas blog explains:

      http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/12/warning-the-electoral-coup-.html#comments

      "Just gaming your three scenarios, two of them don’t make much sense."

      "Scenario 1 is that enough electors defect to a 3rd party that the vote goes to "the Congress".

      "As always, though, it’s the details that matter. In that case the House (alone) selects the President by a simple majority of votes, where each State gets one vote. (Not each Congressperson, each State – so California, one vote. Idaho, one vote. DC gets nothing, BTW.)"

      "You can see how this is horrible for Hillary. Trump won 30 states. If you run the math, Trump wins decisively. Most of the State delegations in the House are controlled by the GOP, very few by Dems and two or three are tied (and might therefore abstain)."

      "So that only puts off the inevitable Trump victory for an extra week, and then Trump is still President, courtesy of the House."

      "Your scenario 3 is possible, where an outside wins, but extremely unlikely. It too could only happen if the race goes to the House. (I take is axomatic that they are not going to get MOST of the electors to be unfaithful. 30 is a high bar that they probably won’t pass, 270 unobtainable). So if they force the vote to the house there is room for a 3rd candidate to win, but only one will be available."

      "That is because the Constitution stipulates that the House is limited to electing only one of the top three highest vote getters in the Electoral Collage. They can’t get creative on the 4th ballot and decide to jump outside of the top three finishers and bring in Colin Powell or someone as the compromise candidate."

      "The only eligible voters if it goes to the House will be Trump, or Hillary or Candidate X (which ever third candidate receives the most faithless electors votes if their are a bunch of faithless electors). So again (given the one-vote-per-State rule Trump will win on the first ballot. And the fact that Gary Johnson or Bernie could have theoretically won will remain only a interesting piece of trivia."

      "Given all that the only really effective way to prevent Trump from taking the office is to convince 36 Trump EC voters to vote for Hillary. I think that is an unreachable goal."

      1. Also, in Virginia, a faithless elector could be indicted for perjuring him or herself under oath. Don’t mess with the Old Dominion state!

        http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/12/the-russian-concept-of-reflexive-control-ttg.html#comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb095f0520970d

        Tidewater said in reply to Kooshy…
        Tidewater says to Kooshy,

        "In Virginia the thirteen members of the Electoral College are required to have previously submitted notarized oaths that they will abide by the election results. They are sworn. It seems to me that it would make for an immediate perjury prosecution if any elector should refuse to accept the legitimacy of the election. And if there is a criminal indictment against an elector, then surely said elector can be replaced before the full electoral college meets in January. I think, but have not of course done the workup on it, that there is machinery in place for the immediate replacement of electors who betray their trust in many states. I think there are more checks and balances in the electoral college than have been generally noted in the media. I would be amazed to find out that there is any possibility of a problem in Virginia. It is a great honor earned by many years of service to one’s political party to become an elector. But if an elector wants to play games and screw it up, he or she can go to jail. And be replaced."

  4. What worries me is that the Dems wouldn’t be trying this soft coup if they didn’t think they could pull it off. Obama was openly encouraging the members of the Military to defy the President Elect:

    http://yournewswire.com/obama-tells-military-ignore-trump/

    That speech was brain dead, as that bunch of people would be more likely to ignore President Obama then President Elect Trump, but shows how delusional these people have become. This makes me feel an irrational and disturbing event is near, as the whole Democratic performance so far, from the leadership to the rank and file, has been irrational to the extreme.

    It’s not just about the lawlessness of the Democrats, which is evident. It’s as though it were a cult, something truly bizarre is marching towards us.

    1. Mark,

      I remarked in an email to a longtime Democratic acquaintance that there seems to be, particularly when you look at Keith Olbermann’s crazed rant, a deep psychological impulse on the Democrat males’ part to appear more manly and tough by fulminating against Putin and demanding everything short of nuclear war with the Russians. Perhaps it comes from a generation or more of Democrats being labeled the peacenik party while Republicans are considered the more hawkish party due to the Iraq war — despite Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s wars of aggression launched against Serbia (1999) and Libya (2011) under NATO auspices.

      I agree with you Mark that there is something indeed, cult like about this whole business, as if these people will not be satisfied until they either self-detonate beside the Russian delegation at the United Nations or blissfully pat themselves on the back before an incoming ICBM incinerates Manhattan.

      1. JRA,

        It appears that these beta-males ( As V calls them) have a tremendous chip on shoulder against the alpha male….I see this in Mark Zuckerberg. These people will always tell you who they are afraid of. Putin is the ultimate alpha male, having people like Kerry and Powers to wait hours to see him. Or when the Chinese did not bring Obama stairs to AF1 maybe the biggest disrespect shown to a world leader I have ever witnessed.

        Furthermore, I believe California will pass that secession bill in ’19 and secede….I give it 35% at first now I give it 70% if Cali voters vote on it. And the vote process there is as corrupt as it gets. I consider this a big deal because this is like their little club….and this. is where they will live.

        1. The question I have to California secessionists — and I consider them having the right to peacefully secede, but not within state drawn borders but on a county by county basis (meaning they allow far northern California to form the State of Jefferson) — is this. Who will pay all the nannies, gardeners and illegal aliens who make up the vast underclass in the Bay area, East LA, Inland Empire and Central and Imperial Valley etc? How will California do with its own currency that won’t become more worthless than drachma, given the need to print so much and inability of the Californian tax base to support the amount of government liberal/leftist Californians demand?

          Don’t get me wrong, Texas has plenty of poor people on food stamps too and would be faced with a similar dilemma, but at least the Tejano or whatever they’d call it would be a petrocurrency.

          1. The analogy I would draw is this — had Moscow insisted back in 1991-92 that Ukraine could secede from the ‘Union’ before it dissolved, but on an oblast by oblast basis, then the current Ukrainian/Donbass war would’ve never happened. Crimeans would’ve voted overwhelmingly to stay with Russia and the Donbass by some margin too. Of course the newly independent Ukrainian former Soviet apparatchiks did not want to lose the offshore gas, the lucrative lease fees from Moscow, or the Donbass coal fields. But they didn’t have an army or a generation of brainwashed Bandera/UPA worshippers to send to fight Donetsk or Lugansk then, so it probably would’ve remained peaceful.

            Within the U.S. we already have the precedent of W. Virginia seceding from Virginia proper during or immediately after the Civil War.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *