What sticks out to me right now is the short attention span of so many people and the lack of giving proper weight to the most important issue. It makes the job of the consciousness manipulators easy.
The false propagandists and professional spinners are trying really, really hard to conveniently leave out that Hillary Clinton flat-out said Russia hacked the DNC when she has zero proof of that.
...we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There’s no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald’s very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really tough, long game here. And one of the things he’s done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee.
I did a Google search on ("hillary clinton" russia DNC -FBI) [less the parentheses]. I added "-FBI" because I suspect that the recent "phone hack" issue is being used to mask searching for ("hillary clinton" russia DNC) without getting the "FBI" results first now (nearly immediately after the debate). Yes, I'm cynical enough to believe the mainstream media manipulates that way. They are mostly neocon, and Hillary is their girl because of it. Neocons hate Russia with a passion. Donald Trump not playing along concerning ramping up the war fever against Russia strikes fear and hatred into the neocons concerning Trump. Nothing else much matters. Trump could be Netanyahu; but if he were to not trash Russia with his all, they'd do everything possible to pull the rug out from under him.
Looking through the Google search results that I filtered for "Past 24 hours" and "Sorted by date," I ran into two post titles/sites that appeared focused on the subject more than the rest:
If you read those, please notice the subtle way in which both leave out that Hillary accused Putin directly for the DNC hack. That's not all you should notice though. The entire subject in the Google results spins the issue away from the issue of war with Russia and its Global Thermonuclear War implications/risks.
I like what Brian Becker, from the anti-war Answer Coalition, had to say; but even he didn't nail the issue (unless he was poorly edited by RT):
“The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it’s manifested itself into something more than just a diversion,” he said.
“Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations,” Becker added.
My Facebook and Google+ post right after the debate sums up my feeling:
Well, if you run in Trump circles, he won. If you run in Clinton circles, she won.
What do I think? They both flubbed and both scored.
THE most important thing to me was Hillary Clinton definitely blaming Russia for hacking the DNC.
Donald Trump handled it better than I expected, and I didn't have low expectations. She doesn't know Russia did it or who did.
He is right that the threat of nuclear war is the gravest immediate danger. He said he would not use a first strike. Bravo that.
Hillary is thumping Russia with her unsubstantiated claims. She's playing with fire: global nuclear incineration and poisoning.
I don't support Donald Trump, but she's more dangerous by far!
Why forget what the Clinton campaign did to the Bernie Sanders campaign? Trump brought it up and wasn't being disingenuous about it.
Why put Trump's unacceptable positions (whatever you feel those are, and people do differ on them of course) higher in importance than the real risk of nuclear war being triggered by the neocon policies and practices toward Russia (which would draw in China and probably others)? Why not give more weight to a nuclear WWIII?
Are you really ready to seriously risk the planet just because you might agree with Hillary Clinton on more issues than you do with Donald Trump? Are you thinking that the risk is low with a Hillary Presidency? Really? She has a proven war-hawk track record and a record of lying about her efforts for peace. She lies by omission. She omits the hawkishness she had during all the times she now claims she was working for peace. She leaves out the finer details concerning how she defines "working for peace." Destroying Syria to weaken Iran to strengthen Israel (regardless of the Palestinian nightmare at the hands of the Zionists) is something she calls working toward peace (Source: "UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015"). She thinks peace will come when Israel is the only regional power there and the only nuclear-weapons holder there. She simply lied and continues to lie about Iran and nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Trump does that too (but in this case, he may not know Iran didn't, and doesn't, have a nuclear-weapons program).
Again, what sticks out to me right now is the short attention span of so many people and the lack of giving proper weight to the most important issue. It makes the job of the consciousness manipulators easy.