Tag Archives: election

Russian Information Warfare: You’re Focusing on the Wrong Thing

Over the past few days – and months – we’ve seen an enormous amount of frothing DERP about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 Elections. Again. After Comey’s testimony, the left predictably screeched that his testimony was damning – that the President tried to obstruct justice when he urged the former FBI Director to drop the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The right – again inevitably – celebrated the fact that Comey confirmed Trump wasn’t personally under investigation and that the New York Times report about contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians was mostly incorrect.

I’m not going to rehash my take on Comey’s testimony. I did so amply the other day, so if you’re interested and haven’t read it yet, please do.

But as I continue to read the vast mental flatulence on both the right and the left, I have to wonder why it is that both sides are ignoring the elephant in the room: Russia’s sophisticated, complex information warfare – not just against the United States, but also our allies. While the right derps that it’s time to forget the Trump/Russia thing, and the left screeches about impeachment, the Russians are engaged in some of the most advanced information warfare I have ever seen, and neither side seems interested in talking about it.

It’s not about the Trump/Russia nexus. It’s about Russia and its assaults on us and our allies.

It is quite obvious Russia cannot match us in conventional warfare. It’s largest State Armaments Program, approved in 2010 and intended to modernize its military and spend billions of dollars on procurement of new armaments over a 10-year span, was stymied by declining oil prices (at the time the SAP was approved, the Russians counted on oil prices staying above $70 per barrel) and western sanctions, among other things. The new 10-year SAP (the Russians approve one every five years) should be much lower than what the Defense Ministry likely wants, given the poor economic forecasts and continued sanctions by both the EU and the United States. And while they spend a lot more for their national defense as a percentage of GDP than we do, their real defense spending is a bit over $50 billion, compared with roughly $660 billion America alone spends on its defense (not to mention the more than $254 billion spent by other NATO members last year).

So let’s not kid ourselves. Russia is no match for us, and no match for the rest of NATO when it comes to conventional strength.

But I think they’re light years ahead of the West when it comes to propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, and manipulation. They know and understand their enemy (that would be us, boys and girls), and they are particularly good at exploiting vulnerabilities to achieve their goals through soft power and propaganda.

This is how they gain their advantage. They work to support public officials who they perceive will be either most supportive of or most easily manipulated into supporting Russia’s long term goals. And they do so surreptitiously and in a manner that uses witting and unwitting agents to spread propaganda and disinformation in support of its strategic goals.

Such operations could include anything from the spread of false information (are you thinking of the goofy Trump/Russia/hookers “dossier” leaked during the Presidential campaign?), to secret funneling of funds into the coffers of pro-Russian politicians, to planting manipulated or outright false news stories, to paying hackers to troll western news sites and post comments that support Russia’s long-term strategic goals, the Russians are experts in information warfare. Hell, they have an entire doctrine and military force just for information operations, which makes our IO efforts look amateurish by comparison! And if you think this new IO unit is only meant to “counter” western propaganda, there’s this bridge I want to sell you…

Recent reporting indicates that U.S. investigators believe Russia may have planted false news stories after having hacked Qatar’s state news agency last month.

The stories about Qatar’s support for terrorist groups caused a diplomatic crisis in the Gulf country, and FBI investigators sent to Qatar to examine the incident noted they believed Russian hackers were behind the intrusion – a claim the Kremlin, of course, denies. But there’s no denying that the move could have driven a wedge between the United States and its allies in the Middle East by quoting false remarks to Qatar’s ruler that appeared friendly to Iran and Israel and questioned whether the American President would even last in office, causing its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to cut their political ties.

Was the fake news story planted by transnational criminal groups, and if so, for what purpose? And given the Kremlin’s ties with criminal organizations, and the fact that Moscow uses criminals to further its policy goals, does it really matter whose fingers were physically on the keyboards? Using criminals affords Russia some plausible deniability when it comes to their information operations, and Russia doesn’t appear at all hesitant to use them, given their more conventional tools are no match for the West.

Comey told lawmakers one of the reasons he decided to announce no charges in the Clinton private email server probe was because he was concerned about an apparently fake piece of Russian intelligence that suggested the Russians had communications indicating former Attorney General Loretta Lynch had assured Democrats she wouldn’t allow Clinton to be charged, and he feared that if the fake intel was released, it would undermine the Justice Department’s role in the probe.

Nuanced? Sure. Indirect? Yes. Cognizant that Comey would likely do everything possible to ensure the integrity of his agency – that nothing was more important to him? Absolutely.

The Russians knew their target and understood his likely motivations. It was a win for them either way. Either they release the alleged email from Lynch, undermining the DOJ probe, or they use Comey as an unwitting actor in their game, knowing he would sacrifice everything to ensure the integrity of his Bureau was not compromised, and they undermine his and the Bureau’s credibility in the eyes of at least half of the American public.

And let’s remember, it’s not just the West that the Russian hackers – witting or not – are targeting. In 2011, on the date of the Russian parliamentary election, a number of liberal internet sites experienced DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks, including Ekho Moskvy, the New Times and Bolshoi Gorod magazines, the election monitoring organization Golos, and the business news and blogging site Slon.Ru.

Coincidence? If you think so, wanna buy a bridge?

They don’t just target the West. They use information operations to ensure their own populace and Russian nationals abroad toe the line in their “understanding” of world events and become politically involved to promote pro-Russia agendas wherever they live.

The Russian information warfare is vast and diverse, according to NATO research, and we appear to be far behind the power curve in this arena.

Furthermore, information warfare can cover a vast range of different activities and processes seeking to steal, plant, interdict, manipulate, distort or destroy information. The channels and methods available for doing this cover an equally broad range, including computers, smartphones, real or invented news media, statements by leaders or celebrities, online troll campaigns, text messages, vox pops by concerned citizens, YouTube videos, or direct approaches to individual human targets.

As I said a while ago, I doubt Trump wittingly colluded with the Russians, and no one has assessed this to this date (save for progtards who still refused to believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election). But I also said the Russians very subtly worked to manipulate public opinion in favor of Trump and erode confidence in our election system. It’s impossible to say whether this insidious campaign was in any way successful, and no reliable assessment exists to that end.

No one claimed the Russians successfully hacked election systems or manipulated votes, and frankly, that would be beneath them. They’re much more intricate and Gordian than that. While there is evidence of a GRU attempt to hack into a voting software supplier prior to last year’s election through spear phishing, no assessment of the effort’s effect on the actual election was made.

Besides, wasn’t it much more effective to hand certain documents to WikiLeaks instead? While Julian Assange still claims the Russians didn’t give WikiLeaks that information, as I have previously said, it’s doubtful he would know. It’s not like documents arrived on his doorstep postmarked “With Love, the Kremlin.”

Wouldn’t it be much more effective to work to discredit a certain candidate?

Wouldn’t it be easier to plant certain information that would influence an adversary’s actions and decisions in Russia’s favor?

NATO research shows:

Control of an opponent’s decision is achieved by means of providing him with the grounds by which he is able logically to derive his own decision, but one that is predetermined by the other side. This can be achieved:

  • By applying the pressure of force.
  • By assisting the opponent’s formulation of an appreciation of the initial situation.
  • By shaping the opponent’s objectives.
  • By shaping the opponent’s decision making algorithm.
  • By the choice of the decision making moment.

Do you not believe that spreading disinformation to manipulate your adversary’s decision making process is much more sophisticated than hamhanded attempts at hacking election software?

I do.

The whole point of this is that both sides are so focused on politics, they’re ignoring the very real threat of Russian manipulation of candidates, elections, and societies writ large.

Our focus shouldn’t be a simplistic question about whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians (although, if anyone is proven to have done so, which they have not so far, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law), but how Moscow used its information warfare efforts to exploit our vulnerabilities and impact our society and our political landscape, and gain insight into our leadership and their intentions.

This is the broader question that both the right and the left seem to be ignoring in their efforts to respectively defend or impugn the President.

We shouldn’t drop our investigation into Russian attempts to influence and manipulate, as it’s critical to understanding this sophisticated adversary. But ultimately, the threat is much bigger than the two political sides choose to acknowledge. While I see nothing but disdain and snark from certain people on the right about Russia hacking, fact is it’s a thing, and the hacking is part of a much bigger effort that needs to be analyzed and investigated, lest we fall even further behind the Russians in that realm.


Some thoughts on Comey

OK, I’ve been in North Carolina all week helping Danny move, and I’ve been too bruised and tired to actually blog (and I left my laptop at home). But I have been following the news, and I wanted to post a few comments on former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony yesterday. I’ve seen vast amounts of DERP! on both sides of the political aisle. Frankly, I don’t think there was a win for Comey in this scenario, no matter what he did. He’s going to get hate. He’s going to get accused of lying. He’s going to be reviled.

I met James Comey last year at a conference (hot damn, the guy is tall!). My personal impression of him was that he was a man of integrity, deep thought, honor, and a commitment to doing the right thing. Having read both his written opening remarks and the transcript of his testimony, I wanted to write a few observations down. Take them for what they are. I’m non-partisan about the issue. Overall, I think Comey didn’t reveal anything new and exciting, but I was disappointed in some of his replies.

But before I get into my thoughts on the opening statement and on the testimony itself, there are a couple of things I want to mention.

  1. Comey didn’t LEAK anything. I’ve seen some frothing derp on social media the past few days talking about Comey leaking information to the press, and one unhinged fuckwit on Twitter accusing him of leaking classified info in his opening statement. These were his own recollections of a conversation he had with the President. He took extra care to ensure nothing classified was disclosed. He stated as much in his testimony, and it was confirmed by Senator Warner who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Comey didn’t leak national security/defense secrets. His thoughts and recollections of the meeting are his own, and they don’t belong to the government, especially since he took care to ensure no classified information was disclosed.
  2. Comey also took care not to discuss classified information in open session.
  3. The President never asked Comey to drop the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 election. He asked him to drop the investigation about Michael Flynn.
  4. Nothing has changed as far as the IC’s assessments on Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election. As I pointed out earlier this year, no one assessed the success or failure of Russian efforts – only that they preferred one candidate over the other and why and that they worked, in part, to undermine Americans’ confidence in their election system.
  5. No one assessed any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and Comey confirmed this.

Comey admitted that he perceived the President’s “hope” that he would drop the case against Flynn as a directive. This was his opinion, and Senator James Risch twisted himself into a pretzel to justify the President’s words, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is good guy. I hope you can let this go.” But fact of the matter is this was the President – the most powerful man in the world – talking to a subordinate. I can’t imagine anyone would not take these words as a directive or a request. And guess what! If my boss makes that kind of request, I tend to obey it (unless, of course, it was unethical, which appears to have been Comey’s major problem with this).

COMEY: I mean, this is a president of the United States with me alone saying I hope this. I took it as, this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it.

RISCH: You may have taken it as a direction but that’s not what he said.

COMEY: Correct.

RISCH: He said, I hope.

COMEY: Those are his exact words, correct.

RISCH: You don’t know of anyone ever being charged for hoping something, is that a fair statement?

COMEY: I don’t as I sit here.

I’m disappointed in Comey here. He claims he didn’t tell the President “no,” because he was intimidated and “not strong enough” to confront the President about this unethical request. This is disappointing, to say the least. The FBI Director should have the balls to stand up to his boss, if an unethical request is being made. He should have the integrity and the testicular fortitude to reply, “Mr. President, this request is not appropriate, and neither is this conversation. The FBI will continue its investigations as appropriate.”

My educated guess is also that the reason Comey didn’t want to confirm or deny that Trump was personally under investigation was that he already got burned once by announcing charges would not be filed against Hillary Clinton, and then finding emails pertinent to the investigation in Anthony Wieners dick mail. So yes, he did confirm to the President that he wasn’t personally under investigation, but he did stress the inquiry into Russian activities would continue.

I don’t think Comey liked Trump – even before he was fired. He didn’t feel comfortable about the conversations he had with him, especially when Trump demanded loyalty, as if he was a mafia Godfather, rather than the President of the United States. I think that’s why he kept a record of those conversations, rather than just because he didn’t like the guy.

I think the President once again showed bad judgment, a lack of maturity, and a lack of ethical awareness in his conversations with Comey. He still thinks he can run a country like he runs a company, but that’s just not the case. Demanding loyalty and exerting the authority of the office – even through softened language – to try and compel the FBI director to drop an investigation against a pal of yours is ethically sketchy at best. Trying to bully him into compliance is not something an accountable public official does. But Trump doesn’t seem to know or understand accountability. And while saying, “I hope you can see your way clear to *insert action here*. I hope you can let this go” isn’t illegal in and of itself and wouldn’t be questionable in a boardroom setting, using your position to ask a high-ranking law enforcement official to let your buddy off the hook certainly is in the Oval Office, given the authority of the position and its accountability to the American people. It’s the behavior of a mafia goon, not a President.

The repeated references to Comey’s position and questions about whether he liked his job and wanted to remain in it struck me as veiled threats.

Comey was nothing if not cautious. While he admitted that shutting down the Flynn investigation probably would not have impeded the overall Russia case, he did leave that possibility open that “if you have a criminal case against someone and squeeze them, flip them and they give you information about something else.” Additionally, until the investigation into Flynn was complete, there was no reason to shut it down. Being a “good guy” and a pal of the President is not cause to stop investigating wrongdoing, especially given Flynn’s previous unauthorized disclosures of classified information for which Jim Mattis booted him out of CENTCOM, meetings with the GRU, thousands of dollars in “speaking fees” to play propaganda tool for Russia-controlled media outlet RT, and failure to register as a foreign agent in a timely manner.

Comey was also very much aware of the optics of having a sitting Attorney General meet privately with the husband of a presidential candidate who was under investigation. He claims there was no case there against Hillary Clinton. I ardently disagree, and have said so numerous times. Clinton should have known the classified information she was sending on an unclassified server was classified. If she didn’t, she had no business sitting in the Oval Office. I won’t rehash all that. Comey, while he did not believe there was a case there, did believe that it would have been appropriate for Loretta Lynch to recuse herself, which she did not do. I believe this put him in an untenable situation, because if he truly believed there was no case there, the dismissal would look terrible after that private meeting, and if the investigation continued, it would compromise the integrity of the DOJ and FBI to have her continue to involve herself.

All the media derp about Comey refuting Trump was nonsense. Yes, he told the President he was not at that point personally under investigation. Yes, the President agreed that it would be critical for the investigation to reveal if anyone close to him was colluding with the Russians. Yes, there was definitely a coercive aspect to those meetings, and frankly, Trump acted like a lout, but that’s not news.

In other words, same ole shit, different day.

And by the way, WHAT THE FUCK, MCCAIN? What the hell was that word salad you spewed?

Stop scaring your children!

I can’t even begin to describe the drama that has been unfolding on Facebook these past couple of days! 

About half my friends are either Republican or Libertarian. The other half is either liberal or downright communist. Yes, I’m friends with all kinds of people, and generally we get along just fine despite our political differences. 

There are some who act like adults. No, they’re not happy with the election results, but they’re engaging with their conservative friends to understand why the results were what they were. They’re asking questions. They’re engaging in some introspection. They’re acting like adults. 

“Trump’s victory is proof that our election system is not rigged. He won fairly – and in spite of significant disadvantages,” said one friend. 

Another honestly wanted to know WHAT the appeal was, needing a way to see Trump as more than just “Hitler rising to power.” (And yes, I pointed out the errors in reasoning.)

I sat my folks down yesterday and explained to them that despite being unhappy with the election results, there will be times in their government careers when they will work for an administration whose head they did not vote for. I explained to them that they were the brightest, most dedicated group of professionals I have ever had the honor of working with and leading – that they care more about what they do and the future and security of our country than any government employees I’ve ever seen! I told them they were dedicated and brilliant, and that what they do when the transition team lands Monday will help set the tone for the relationship this administration has with our community for what could be as long as eight years. 

They took my speech to heart, because they’re adults. 

On the other side of the spectrum, we have the drama queens who sniveled and whined about the “dark times.”

“What will we tell our daughters?”

“My children are terrified!”

“My daughter spent the night in tears last night!”

“We are returning to an era of hate and racism!”

“Homophobia! My gay daughter cried all day!”

“My trans friend wants to commit suicide!”

They post photos of racist graffiti as a harbinger of things to come and blame their friends for casting a vote for someone they claim wants to take us back to the age of discrimination. 

They refuse to even consider that perhaps listening to the other side every once in a while is wise, and that maybe their friends aren’t the RACISTHOMOPHOBICMISOGYNIST monsters they believe all Trump supporters to be. 

There are calls for revolution (yeah, most of you assholes hate guns, so good luck with that), violence, assassinations, and murder.

Some are actually acting on it!

If you need proof of the burning stupid, read Wednesday night’s post

The most heartbreaking of the lot, however are the stories about the children.

And of course, the media is flogging those like a cheap dominatrix. 

With ardent support from hysterical parents, the narrative is now that Trump supporters hate Mexican children, and will send them back to Mexico in cattle cars. 

“What will I tell my children?”

“I’m scared for my children!”

“My children are frightened!”

You know why they’re frightened? 

Because in your froth-flecked zeal to paint Trump and his supporters as odious as possible, you’ve scared the shit out of them!

Because, some among you are so desperate to promote the “racism” message, you go as far as to file false reports to police about evil Trump supporters attacking your Muslimness!

A Muslim woman in Louisiana who told police she was attacked with a metal object and robbed of her headscarf and wallet by two men wearing Donald Trump clothing just hours after Trump was elected president admitted to police today that she made it up, Lafayette police told ABC News.

You tell them lies about your fellow Americans.

You whip them into a panic about their future. 

You froth and despair about the future of our nation because someone you don’t like got elected and tell your children how awful things are, instead of simply telling them that in their lifetimes there will be times when someone for whom they did not vote will become president. 

You irrationally demand impeachment and the end to the electoral college, because someone you did not support won the election!

You know why your children are scared, you whining ignorami? Because YOU are scaring them. Yes. You. 

It’s YOUR refusal to be a grownup and a parent and provide rational guidance rather than foolish histrionics that is scaring them, and will eventually facilitate their development into swooning members of participation trophy-hoarding Generation Cupcake!

It’s YOUR failure as a parent and as a role model that’s frightening them, and YOUR refusal to provide objective direction that’s giving them angst, because apparently you’d rather impose your irrational hatred of your fellow Americans on them than guide them through challenging times. 

It’s YOUR inability to provide impartial, balanced narrative, because you’re so busy projecting your utter hatred, that is scaring your gay kids, who thanks to your histrionics about Trump’s alleged “homophobia and transphobia,” don’t even know that despite Trump’s significant faults, he was vocal in his support of transgender individuals using whatever bathrooms they felt appropriate during a time when the issue was at its contentious height, and put his money where his mouth was. 

It’s YOUR inability to discuss real issues, rather than focus on vagina politics, it’s YOUR ineptitude at objectivity and failure to admit that it wasn’t sexism or misogyny that tanked Hillary Clinton, but rather the fact that she was a venal, corrupt, entitled, dishonest cheater who looked down her nose for years at the same people who handed Trump his victory.

If you want to know why your children are scared, upset, and angry, you have only to look in the mirror and your failure to adult as the reason. 

Trump is hardly the perfect candidate. He wasn’t even a good candidate! I will even go as far as to say that he was a terrible candidate, and I have said so often on this site. 

But you know what? He won. He will be President. And it’s your duty as a parent to make your kids understand what the duties and limitations of the office are, what they must do and learn to work hard and help a victory next time, if that’s what they want, and that there will be people in this country who have different opinions from you – and their voices count just as much as yours. Teach them how government works to allay their irrational fears – after you learn it yourselves. 

Acting like a petulant child in front of your kids breeds just the type of screeching, entitled, safe-space seeking Snowflakes whose mercenary attempts to shut down and destroy the opposition’s right to a voice, instead of engaging them (ostensibly because life is hard when you’re offended by everything) ensured the backlash that resulted in a Trump presidency. 

As Barack Obama told Republicans a few years back, he won. “Deal with it.”

And stop scaring your kids!

Think your side is any better?

I’m anxiously waiting for this clown show of an election to be over.

I know I’ve written about clickbait before – about waiting to find out facts before screeching, and about not getting your news from Internet memes. Yesterday’s debacle at a Trump rally was a perfect example of the kind of stupid that epitomizes this election season.

If you haven’t heard, there was a commotion at a Trump rally yesterday. A commotion. We’ve seen protesters at those events before. Many of them – as revealed in multiple reports and leaks – were instigated by the Clinton camp. This is nothing new.

scavinoTrump was rushed off the stage, because a disturbance broke out. You know what numerous sub-morons in some “media” outlets reported? An assassination attempt.

You know what the Trump campaign immediately touted, because its candidate is oh-so-victimized, and subsequently oh-so-courageous to get right back in the game? An assassination attempt.

You know what it really was? Some guy with a sign that said, “REPUBLICANS AGAINST TRUMP.”

The man who caused a commotion at a Donald Trump rally Saturday said he’s a registered Republican who wanted only to show his displeasure with his party’s nominee.

Members of the audience at the event for the GOP presidential nominee tackled Austyn Crites, 33, of Reno after someone yelled “gun” while others were trying to rip away his anti-Trump sign.

“I just went with sign that said ‘Republicans Against Trump,’ ” Crites said. “It’s a sign that you can find online. I held up the sign and initially people around me were just booing me telling me to get out of there. Then a couple of these guys tried grabbing the sign out of my hands.”

Crites had no weapon. Secret Service agents later released a statement to that effect and let him go without charges.

assassinationBut I guess it’s too much to ask for the obvious clickbaiters to actually wait for the facts to come out. My social media timeline was immediately filled with “ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT!” stories.

At least the morons at IJR had the good sense to modify the headline.

I’m also amazed that – once again – so many otherwise intelligent people refuse to fact check before posting outrageous crap, because drama for their candidate is a selling point.

Oh, he’s so brave for continuing the speech even after an “assassination attempt!” See what a courageous President he’ll make?

Look how reviled he is merely for speaking truth to power! The Democrats are scared of him! That’s why they’re trying to intimidate him!

Look how committed he is to his supporters, coming back to speak after an attack!

Fact is, this guy showed up as a protester, peaceably protested, was booed by Trump supporters, and then “someone” screamed that he had a gun (which was absolutely false), and the chimps dogpiled him. Hard.

And without knowing all the facts, the die hard lunatics proceeded to advance the “assassination attempt” narrative.

Much like with any shooting, people are desperate for the incident to fit the narrative. It’s been proven time and time again, that the media jumps in face first into a story without getting all the facts, and is forced to retract and update in order to get the story right.

Shouldn’t we be better than this?

And this?

But no. Because it doesn’t fit the narrative. It’s just not dramatic enough to just have a protester at a rally.

This is not about whose candidate is better, although, I’m fully expecting a bunch of comments about how Hillary supporters are so much worse, without acknowledging that this kind of ignorance happens on both sides.

The desperation on both sides is palpable!

It seems the closer we get to Election Day, the more garbage the Internet spews out, and the more people immediately grab the first story they see that fits their preconceived notions and promote it as fact.

I would submit to you that most people have made up their minds about their vote (or non-vote) in this election, and acting like an ignorant shit weasel about others’ choices by refusing to do your research and spreading the first fucktastic clickbait trash you see that supports your view in this impossibly awful election will not endear you to anyone, and will likely result in people you ostensibly respect turning away from you, thinking you’re a shit-flinging moron.

If you’re OK with this, go ahead and continue trying to convince your friends and family with Internet memes, erroneous “news” stories, and downright false clickbait garbage about how much better your candidate is than theirs. The only person you will be embarrassing is yourself, and the only result will be the loss of relationships with friends and loved ones, because you’re acting like a moron.

The bottom line is, stop letting the age of infotainment control your common sense! Wait for the facts. Stop jumping to conclusions without having accurate information. Read primary sources when possible. Get corroborative reporting. Ensure your initial source is one that’s reliable, not something that screams, “BREAKING NEWS! FBI Shocking Evidence…” or “Was The Protester Who Forced Trump Off NV Stage A Hillary Provocateur?”

(Trumpanzees screeching it’s all Hillary’s minions trying to destroy Trump, as if Republicans who wouldn’t cast a vote in his direction if he was running against Satan himself don’t exist, in 3…2…1… Go ahead. Get it out of your systems now, boys and girls.)

And most of all, try not to act like a paranoid, barely educated shit weasel.

No, seriously – WHAT THE FUCK?

So apparently, this really horrible comedienne (I’ve seen “Trainwreck.” I didn’t find it funny.) Amy Schumer, who was accused of stealing other comics’ material, did some kind of stand-up show at Madison Square Garden, and had Madonna as her opening act.

madonna-youngNow, those of us who grew up in the 80s remember Madonna as a not halfway horrible pop singer that had awful fashion sense, wore a lot of cheap rubber jewelry, and sang about being a virgin or some shit. We also remember that the older she got, the more desperate for attention she became, publishing a coffee table book in 1992 that talked about sex and that included erotic photographs of her and essays she wrote about… oh fuck, I don’t even! I mean, really. She had Vanilla Ice in that book, ferfuckssake!

I also remember her being a decent dancer and choreographer, but with costume tastes that were about as awful as Lady Gaga’s. Meh.

In more recent years, she came out with some kind of skin care line, and basically faded into obscurity…

Until yesterday.

The Material Girl took the stage as the opening standup act for Amy Schumer at Madison Square Garden on Tuesday night, and joked about a proposition to people who cast their ballot for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“One more thing before I introduce this genius of comedy: If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a b–job — and I am good,” she said to the crowd.

The 58-year-old singer went on to detail her qualifications for the position.

“I take my time, I have… eye contact and I do swallow,” she added, giving a thumbs up.

madonna_old-451x250Yeah. If you vote for someone who routinely violated diplomatic protocol, spilled classified information, lied about it, and whom diplomatic security agents apparently avoided like a flaming case of the herp, to run this country, you will get a blow job from a 58-year-old, dried up hooker. Oh, and she’ll swallow! There’s incentive for you!

Anyone else want to vomit in their own mouths?

Seriously, do you want to look down and see THAT with your trouser snake in its mouth? She’s past cougar and into perhaps vulture. She’ll swallow, alright. And later she’ll vomit your giblets back up to feed her offspring in their nest!

Realistically, I don’t care what that ancient whore does with her mouth, as long as it doesn’t come anywhere near me. I realize it’s a joke. But let’s get real here. Other than for freak points – are there really guys out there who would allow this tramp, whose mouth has probably seen more dick than a urinal. At Grand Central Station. During tourist season. To tongue tickle their  pickle?

And really… this is what this election has descended into? A desiccated hag, who is quickly approaching 60, offering to fellate any guy stupid enough to vote for the vagoo as President of the United States, and 1992 reports of a current Presidential candidate lasciviously telling 14-year-old kids in a youth group choir that he would date them in a couple of years?

This election can’t end fast enough!

%d bloggers like this: