Re: Trump to Win?

[Woodsman]

Anarchy in the US.

”We’re starting anarchy. And he needs to understand that we’re starting anarchy.”

God save Queen Hillary. We love our queen. God saaaaave her!

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Have you read the Goldman speeches? Hoo boy. She calls them the "spinal column" and "nerves" of America. She has such sympathy for banksters.

And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations, they’re scared of the other shoe dropping, they’re just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.

So people are, you know, a little — they’re still uncertain, and they’re uncertain both because they don’t know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they’re also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we’re only beginning to take hold of.

So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we’re all in this together, how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street and HRC sycophantic speeches prove it. FIRE will dominate a Clinton administration, and the Clinton administration will bend over backwards to service it. Bernie, we hardly knew ye.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

i'm very wary of videos like this, these "secret," "under-cover" exposes. they have historically been heavily edited to produce misleading information. e.g. breitbart's famous twisting of an agriculture dept official's speech to make it sound like she made an "anti-white" statement when in fact she did no such thing.

the intro alone illustrates the process- lots of small snips, brief excerpts from presumably longer statement, to produce a desired effect in the viewer, but may grossly misrepresent because of a lack of context. i won't invest 16 minutes in it.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Yes, yes, not dispassionate enough for your taste, these partisans. Nevertheless, what would 60 Minutes or Michael Moore be without this sort of gonzo guerrilla journalism? And goodness know we can't expect any journalism out of the "professionals" this year.

if you take a moment to watch it you'll see there are no leading questions. Just the principals, yammering away with such verities as "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf*cker." And if there was nothing to it, then why would the dirty tricks shop at the center of this have fired the man uttering these eternal truths?

You can lead a horse to water...

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to Win?

Have you read the Goldman speeches? Hoo boy. She calls them the "spinal column" and "nerves" of America. She has such sympathy for banksters.

It goes without saying that I detest HRC but I don't think she has sympathy/empathy for anyone but herself. As long as you pay her enough money, she'll say and do what you want. If there were such thing as an organization called Shoeshine Boys of America that was able to pay HRC $250,000 for a 30-minute speech, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she preached that shiny shoes are the very genesis and foundation of the American Empire.

We'll see what happens. If she gets elected, I can hardly wait for the betrayals to start.

[wayiwalk]

Re: Trump to Win?

Wall Street has given HRC more dollars than to DT; in Barack Obama's case, he also received more dollars than McCain and more than Romney, although with Romney it was close.

I would expect that as far as finance is concerned, and all things "dollar", HRC will follow the Wall Street lead, just like Obama did.

Why would one expect anything else?

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to Win?

Yes, yes, not dispassionate enough for your taste, these partisans. Nevertheless, what would 60 Minutes or Michael Moore be without this sort of gonzo guerrilla journalism? And goodness know we can't expect any journalism out of the "professionals" this year.

if you take a moment to watch it you'll see there are no leading questions. Just the principals, yammering away with such verities as "It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf*cker." And if there was nothing to it, then why would the dirty tricks shop at the center of this have fired the man uttering these eternal truths?

You can lead a horse to water...

That there are people passionate about their personal belief systems and supporting political (or other) objectives should be no surprise.
That there are people who are willing to stretch and cross the boundaries of ethical behaviour and legal activities in support of those beliefs and objectives should be no surprise (how many years has it been since Watergate?)/
That there are people that are seduced by money and the power that comes with it (the financial elite) or by power and the money that comes with it (Mrs. Clinton being the most prominent poster child) should be no surprise.

Extropolating that to a position that the US election voting system is completely corrupted is a stretch.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

"rigging the election" would require the cooperation of MANY state officials in MULTIPLE STATES, including republican officials in many of those states.

trump goes back and forth between claiming vote tampering and ballot box stuffing on the one hand, and media prejudice on the other. as for the latter, he has himself to blame. e.g. when the phoenix arizona paper endorses a democrat for the first time in 125 years, it took some doing. trump never did the "pivot to being presidential" that was expected of him. instead he kept sending out offensive tweets at 3am. as someone said, someone who can't ignore a tweet is someone who does not engender trust.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

"rigging the election" would require the cooperation of MANY state officials in MULTIPLE STATES, including republican officials in many of those states.

Wrong. All it takes is a few well placed persons in a few key congressional districts and the willingness to break the law. And then of course, there's the rigging we saw in California and New York during the Democratic Primary, with new voters given useless provisional ballots, the strategic spoiling of ballots and other fun and games deployed against Bernie.

It might be that your hate and fear of Trump is easing you into a nice state of confirmation bias, doctor. I suggest the work of Greg Palast as a curative. Or maybe just go read about LBJ and "box 13."

It's far easier and more common than you would like to believe, alas.

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

johnson and box 13 was in 1948. something similar was allegedly done in chicago in 1960. voter suppression, removal of people from rolls, supplying inadequate voting machines for some districts [as was done in ohio not long ago for minority districts] are all tools.

i suppose if trump indeed loses you can allege it was rigged. otoh the polling data is pretty extreme, unless you want to say they're all rigged too. if so, quite a conspiracy!

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

... if so, quite a conspiracy!

There it is! The magic word intended to shut down debate.

I was hoping you'd whip out that little chestnut. I bet my lunch date you'd throw just that canard. And you just won me a free lunch, doctor! Thanks so much for being you.

Make America Great Again. Go TRUMP!

Make America Great Again. Go TRUMP!

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

There it is! The magic word intended to shut down debate.

I was hoping you'd whip out that little chestnut. I bet my lunch date you'd throw just that canard. And you just won me a free lunch, doctor! Thanks so much for being you.

Make America Great Again. Go TRUMP!

Make America Great Again. Go TRUMP!

if you don't like the word "conspiracy" tell me what you would call a secret effort by many people coordinating efforts to rig an election.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to Win?

There it is! The magic word intended to shut down debate.

Like your candidate, you're a master of persuasion. I don't respect your comment for it's value or insight but I do respect how deftly you shut down debate and at the same time blamed your opponent. Brilliantly played.

I was hoping you'd whip out that little chestnut.

Like a chess master, you are anticipating your opponents moves. You're the smart guy and your opponent has set a trap for himself.

I bet my lunch date you'd throw just that canard. And you just won me a free lunch, doctor! Thanks so much for being you.

So you've shut down debate, blamed your opponent, dismissed him as predictable, not addressed any of his points and gotten a free lunch! It's time for a sunset cruise.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

if you don't like the word "conspiracy" tell me what you would call a secret effort by many people coordinating efforts to rig an election.

Feeling a bit slow after that ridiculous-sized steak and potato, never mind the martinis. That said, "crime" or "felony" seems sufficiently to the point and free of pejorative. Since this is a crime against the people, how about a cute acronym?

SCAM - State Crime Against Majoritarianism

[jk]

Re: Trump to Win?

Feeling a bit slow after that ridiculous-sized steak and potato, never mind the martinis. That said, "crime" or "felony" seems sufficiently to the point and free of pejorative. Since this is a crime against the people, how about a cute acronym?

SCAM - State Crime Against Majoritarianism

the joint coordination of several people to commit a crime is called a "conspiracy." that's what the law calls it. sorry you don't like the word, but there are a lot of law books you're going to have to edit to get rid of it.