Trump to win?

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

...The old people that are controlling America are all their 70s and 80s, they don't have many more years to live. How often can a person in his mid-80s live to 100? Longevity is not something you can buy. They know the end game but it will happen way past them.

...

Ivanka for President.

Solves all the problems:
1. Can't be accused of sexism and abusing women;
2. Almost certainly more trustworthy in the broad public's opinion than Mrs. Clinton;
3. Slam dunk to get the "it's time for a woman in the Oval Office" vote;
4. Still married to her first spouse; highly unlikely he's a philanderer;
5. Tougher under fire than her father, with more grace;
6. Bonus Points: Will probably bring some class back to the White House, missing since the Reagan's left.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Agreed.

Populism is an incredibly powerful tool/vision/strategy for change.

Sadly, most who would leverage populism ultimately use it for evil.

I don't think I need to list sources and evidence for that, the worst horrors in human history started with populist campaigns for change.

Whether it is a violent revolution, non violent resistance, authoritarian state, or deep state hiding behind the vaneer of democracy it is always a small group on the fringe. Always.

Populism can only seize that fulcrum when the pain experienced by the masses is no longer able to be mitigated by the few in control doling out painkillers.

Populists and VCs are both looking for the same thing, to invest in painkillers for profit.

-----

Yes, the word is populism. The other thing is absolute power corrupts absolutely. This applies not just to dictators but a small group of people.

I have absolutely no horse in this race.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable for President. Neither.

It's incredibly telling to see members here who display such dangerously blindered viewpoints in this election to think external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption.

The US interferes everywhere around the world, which Woodsman is so quick to always point out, yet he finds foreign interference/disruption attempts in the US that don't fit his inflexible narrative to be laughable.

All while he concurrently points out both clear and alleged examples of foreign influence.

It's illogical.

It is difficult not to be influenced by the American MSM. If Trump is as bad as they had portrayed, he would have been in jail.

I'll be very blunt on this, if you were to compare with people who killed hundreds of thousands of babies and children in the Middle East, what's so bad about a couple of vulgar words?

Can anyone male here swear to god that they had never said anything sexist in their whole lives? If you were a billionaire, unless you are computer nerd who needs a mama-cum-wife like Mark, there will be tons of women throwing themselves at you. We are not to judge.

As I see it, Trump doesn't need to be the US President. Anyone in his position don't need to. He already has the wealth and TV fame which his competitors don't. In fact, by going against the establishment, the bankers, he risks damaging his own business.

Why didn't Michael Bloomberg run for president? He could have easily won. His credentials and reputation are 10 times better.

The old people that are controlling America are all their 70s and 80s, they don't have many more years to live. How often can a person in his mid-80s live to 100? Longevity is not something you can buy. They know the end game but it will happen way past them.

So you may ask don't they care about their kids? Well, they are billionaires, they can go anywhere, if need be even setup a colony on Antarctica or outer space.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Seems like the Russians may be on Clinton's team:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...nergy-company/

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...It's incredibly telling to see members here who display such dangerously blindered viewpoints in this election to think external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption.

The US interferes everywhere around the world, which Woodsman is so quick to always point out, yet he finds foreign interference/disruption attempts in the US that don't fit his inflexible narrative to be laughable.

All while he concurrently points out both clear and alleged examples of foreign influence.

It's illogical.

What logic, Steed?

You keep moving the goal posts and alleging I've made claims I haven't. I never made a claim that "external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption." I acknowledged that and put forward another external actor that does just that.

I simply state that until someone presents some evidence - any evidence at all, not mere opinion or speculation or assertions - that the Russian Federation is actively targeting the US Democratic Party to help the Republican Party win the 2016 election, I call bullshit. As for inflexible narrative, that's all we get from you - Russia, Russia, Russia.

You ignored the question the last time and went straight for the ad hominem, so here it is again.

The question at issue is this - is the Russian Federation actively targeting the US Democratic Party to help the Republican Party win the 2016 election.

You don't need a 10K word salad and half a dozen links, just pick one: yes or no. If it's no, then thanks for playing. If it's yes, show us the cards.

On second though, don't worry about it. The one thing you said that's absolutely true should be the common ground we leave the matter. This topic has jumped the shark.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

I can see that almost everyone who is not American on this forum is trying to convey the message - something very wrong is happening to the US politics/government and if not stopped may lead to something disastrous - disastrous not only to Americans, or the whole world.

One may say Americans are fine. I'm sure Germans are fine, today, as they were 80 years ago, they are the same people? The same with Japanese people 80 years ago. The problem is not with the people, but the small group of people that are in control.

Agreed.

Populism is an incredibly powerful tool/vision/strategy for change.

Sadly, most who would leverage populism ultimately use it for evil.

I don't think I need to list sources and evidence for that, the worst horrors in human history started with populist campaigns for change.

Whether it is a violent revolution, non violent resistance, authoritarian state, or deep state hiding behind the vaneer of democracy it is always a small group on the fringe. Always.

Populism can only seize that fulcrum when the pain experienced by the masses is no longer able to be mitigated by the few in control doling out painkillers.

Populists and VCs are both looking for the same thing, to invest in painkillers for profit.

-----

I have absolutely no horse in this race.

Neither Clinton nor Trump are suitable for President. Neither.

It's incredibly telling to see members here who display such dangerously blindered viewpoints in this election to think external actors are not motivated and capable to attempt interference/disruption.

The US interferes everywhere around the world, which Woodsman is so quick to always point out, yet he finds foreign interference/disruption attempts in the US that don't fit his inflexible narrative to be laughable.

All while he concurrently points out both clear and alleged examples of foreign influence.

It's illogical.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

There's a "e" and two "l"'s in Dulles. The old man would be seriously miffed.

ok, "allen" my apologies

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

There's a "e" and two "l"'s in Dulles. The old man would be seriously miffed.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

What do say of that Director Dulles?



I think you are naive, Jk. But only a little less than Woodsman for obvious reasons. And for those reasons this is his last word on the matter, thanks.

i certainly am uneducated and very likely naive about the the hidden gov't and its operatives and apparatuses. you've accused [is that the right word?] lake of being a spook, but you yourself are the person who has written the most here about spooks, conspiracies, the yankee-cowboy war, alan dulles, and so on. this is obviously an interest of yours....

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Perhaps it is worth relating that the BBC TV Newsnight recently shewed us that many voters were so pissed off with the conventional political system, that they are disregarding the Trump bad publicity and are determined to vote for him as the only way out of their perceived dilemma.

The Trump fans of Ohio

What's the appeal of Donald Trump? Gabriel Gatehouse reports from Youngstone, Ohio.

Release date:

12 October 2016
Duration:

14 minutes

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04bsl5z

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...The problem is not with the people, but the small group of people that are in control.

What do say of that Director Dulles?

Rep. Boggs. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath?

Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

The Chairman. Why?

Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way.

Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief?

Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.

Rep. Boggs. What you do is make out a problem if this be true, make our problem utterly impossible because you say this rumor can't be dissipated under any circumstances.

p.154, Vol. 5. President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,Report of Proceedings Held at Washington, D.C., Monday, January 27, 1964

I think you are naive, Jk. But only a little less than Woodsman for obvious reasons. And for those reasons this is his last word on the matter, thanks.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Cheers for that jk.

It's good to see not everyone here is building a tinfoil wall.

I can see that almost everyone who is not American on this forum is trying to convey the message - something very wrong is happening to the US politics/government and if not stopped may lead to something disastrous - disastrous not only to Americans, or the whole world.

One may say Americans are fine. I'm sure Germans are fine, today, as they were 80 years ago, they are the same people? The same with Japanese people 80 years ago. The problem is not with the people, but the small group of people that are in control.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

i understand and respect your reason for supporting trump as an instrument for the destruction of the current political parties. i personally think as an ied he carries too much risk for collateral damage, but that's simply an opinion, and you have a different opinion. fine.

but supporting him for the reasons you do doesn't necessarily entail the kinds of defenses you offer for him. if, for example, i were to conclude as you do that the risks a trump presidency poses are de minimis compared to the desirable political consequences he would deliver, i wouldn't care whether his sexual peccadilloes were being over-advertised in comparison with bill clinton's, or whether the russians indeed were behind the hacking of the dnc.

why should those kinds of things matter if you merely support him as an instrument of destruction?

Seriously? This is even a question? Because I want him to prevail.

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

Whatever I can do to assist that I'm going to do, however insignificant to the final outcome. It's my little butterfly wings flapping in Bangor to make a typhoon in Bangladesh. But since you mention it, I don't consider his priapic behavior anywhere outside the norm of your average Fortune 1000 CEO and the like. In fact, I've personally witnessed worse.

As for "Russkies for Trump", it's just dumb and insulting and speaks of such colossal contempt these establishment figures hold for all Americans. It's my privilege to piss on it from a great height. Look out below!

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Woodsman, you made it to Broadway!!





http://thewoodsmanplay.com/

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Apology accepted, thank you.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Sangfroid suits you doctor. But guess what, some of us can do both advocacy and analysis!

Or maybe this is just a less than clever way of stifling discussion of ideas some are said to loathe. My advocacy for Trump is detailed at the link in my sig if you're still unclear as to what motivates this early and committed Sanders supporter to punish Hilz and the Democratic Party for stealing the nomination and setting us on the scorched Earth path. And all so HRC can have her turn.

As for the "dispassionate" discussion on "cyber" (no technician who's not a salesman first hears that term without flinching - so 20th Century) operations, recall that our own resident James Bond arrogates to himself the power to set the agenda of what is "perfectly legitimate" and what is "tinfoil hat conspiracy theory." Functionally that means, a conspiracy theory that supports the "Trump as Russian Agent" canard is considered "reasonable" and everything else is an artifact of mental illness.

I'm sorry you are afraid, doctor. I find that fighting for something bigger than one's own interests helps keep fear at bay. Exercising what agency one commands does wonders to release folks of that awful learned helplessness and analysis paralysis trap.


MAGA! GO TRUMP! JAIL HILLARY! GO TRUMP! MAGA!

i understand and respect your reason for supporting trump as an instrument for the destruction of the current political parties. i personally think as an ied he carries too much risk for collateral damage, but that's simply an opinion, and you have a different opinion. fine.

but supporting him for the reasons you do doesn't necessarily entail the kinds of defenses you offer for him. if, for example, i were to conclude as you do that the risks a trump presidency poses are de minimis compared to the desirable political consequences he would deliver, i wouldn't care whether his sexual peccadilloes were being over-advertised in comparison with bill clinton's, or whether the russians indeed were behind the hacking of the dnc.

why should those kinds of things matter if you merely support him as an instrument of destruction?