Trump to win?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

... Stop bitching and make a difference. If you think a decent democracy can be supported by a vote and a bumper sticker, we're screwed.

SF, I think you know better here than your comment evidences. I understand your decision to support Clinton and believed you appreciated the basis of my decision to encourage support for Sanders. Events will play out as they do, but regardless of that, I'm always looking to broaden those areas where we agree. I'm clear on the duties of citizenship and do the best I can under the circumstances.

Curious that you mention running for local government as just yesterday I was discussing that with my dear ones. I doubt I'd be up for the glad-handling of a campaign again, although I haven't entirely dismissed the idea. Perhaps Commissioner of Sewers?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

....Sanders?!?...

Yes, Senator Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont.



The same one who has beaten Hillary 19 out of the last 25 times. The same Bernie Sanders who raised $200 million dollars - one $10 donation at a time - and taking no money from PACs or corporate lobbyists, regularly defeats Clinton and polls ahead of Trump.



I support Bernie Sanders - a center left Independent who is right in the middle of the American mainstream.










I support the same Bernie Sanders who opposed the disastrous Iraq war, then and today.

And was among the few who warned about the financial crisis.

He's also the same Bernie Sanders who is on the right side of issues you've claimed to have supported for years, including ending the endless wars, breaking-up the banks and prosecuting the banksters, public funding of elections, an end to gerrymandering, and a program of broad and deep TECI/Infrastructure investment.

I started the year in deep cynicism and have seen it replaced with guarded enthusiasm and it's all because of the remarkable, historic, and unprecedented campaign Sanders has run. I admire the professional way he's applied his successful popular vote strategy and appreciate his broad appeal and also how he's smartly capitalized on Hillary's many and profound weaknesses as a candidate. I wish Democrats had a dozen more like him to run in the Senate and a 100 more in the House. Given his amazing run of success, I expect we'll see an effort to do that regardless of how the nomination turns out.

What I like most about Sanders is his character and consistency, especially how it stands in such stark contrast to Clinton's crooked timber, sordid past and questionable present. In terms of the campaign, I think that among his greater assets versus Clinton and Trump is the fact that of all the candidates for President he is the only one not currently under investigation by the FBI or the New York Attorney General's Office.

I'm perfectly content to be identified among his supporters and have made a good effort to communicate those areas where it seems to me the iTulip thesis and the Sanders program overlap. I've noted profound agreement in areas we've long identified as critically important to reversing the present crisis, with a TECI-style plan for infrastructure investment being the primary driver of recovery. I'll be damned if I will allow the weight of a decades long propaganda and psychological warfare campaign to addle my mind as it has so clearly addled others' ability to test reality. Sanders is the real deal and I'll continue to encourage folks to give him a fair hearing now and into the convention.

Such opinions as you posted are well-known, demonstrably contradictory of those you made previously and of no consequence to me. By this most recent excerpt, it's easy to imagine you think the history of US/Latin American relations started sometime around last spring, otherwise why ignore the fact that no country south of the Rio Grande with a left-of-center government has ever been permitted to merely exist without enduring intense American political and economic war or actual invasion?

I've long acknowledged that such deep misunderstanding of history and politics is almost entirely informed by an indiscriminate consumption of rightist propaganda. I've witnessed many artifacts of this impenetrable ignorance along the years and while I've tried to help where I could my response continues to evolve towards utter indifference.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

So you don’t have an opinion about the crisis in Venezuela?

I have an opinion about Venezuela. I have known several families from there, all rich, light skinned, kids will go to college in the states. All thought Chavez had crossed a line in riling up the man on the street, but all to a T. blamed the US government and US corporations for corrupting Venezuelan society and setting it on a ridiculous path. They would laugh in your face if you suggested Chavez was running a socialist experiment. The rich were doing just fine, business as usual. All of these people live or lived in Thailand where the gulf between rich and poor is pretty wide. All said, “This is nothing compared to Caracas. You just cannot imagine how poor the poor are without going there.

One man told me about vacating an apartment shortly after college...I'm paraphrasing... “I was leaving stuff there…a rickety table, three or four glasses, a couple of bowls, toilet paper. I had promised all this to my maid. On the next to last day, my landlord showed up and grabbed everything, telling me giving this stuff to my maid was asking for unrest. My maid came and was disappointed that so much of the stuff was gone, but she walked away with what she considered a big haul. She pounded nails straight and carefully placed them in a plastic bag. She took the empty can of bug spray from under the kitchen sink. She folded bags from the grocery into perfect origami triangles. When I walked her out to the street, she harvested seeds from my herb garden. She wept and hugged me. I had paid her a bit above the going wage which had infuriated my friends.”

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

I have an opinion about Venezuela that is not indifferent to that above, related by Thailandnotes. But then again, coming as I do from the UK, it seems to me that I have to be careful not to seem a know it all, as I have never "been there". Then again, I have spent some time in the US and have traveled to many of the states; meeting and conversing with many on the way.

We human's have a distinct group among us that believes in war; war at any cost other than to themselves. So any adversary is "fair game" and any socialist minded individual becomes an easy target.

On the other hand, socialism has been built upon a set of rules that take us back beyond the original Russian revolution, into a world deeply driven by wars. Those socialist rules simply do not work; but at one and the same time, the resulting bureaucracies created to drive these socialist rules create an environment that demands compliance; because their bureaucratic entities are driven by such compliance and the related successful, very prosperous bureaucratic careers; only remain viable through the continuance of that socialist failure.

That in turn shows us that even a seemingly non socialist nation; the very best example being the USA; can fall into the same mindset of borrow and spend to create jobs, where the poor have the jobs; rather than allowing the poor access to greater prosperity; outside of the control of the central status quo; itself driven by the bureaucrats working away in the background.

No one controls without that essential prosperity deeply embedded within their bureaucracy; which works tirelessly to remain in control; feeding upon continuing failure.

On that basis, I recently wrote to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to ask them to consider that what they must do is change the rules, and, as an example, I gave them each a copy of my submission to the Bank of England Open Forum 2015. I received a nice note in answer from Corbyn's secretary to tell me they both have the document and that it has been passed to their policy group. More recently McDonnell turned up on BBC Newsnight to say that they were looking towards changing Capitalism, rather than continuing to try and destroy it. Perhaps I have had an effect; perhaps not, but at least I have tried to start the required change in mindset that has so damaged millions of individual lives for so long.

That raises the challenge to others to do the same for the individuals that so love the idea of going to war. Again, as I see it they are a very small group, probably not more than a few hundred at any level to implement their deeply embedded desires as government policy. So who among us has access to them and as such can start to work towards a similar change of mindset?

Socialism must change to succeed, but the greatest challenge is created by the bureaucratic mindset that has for so long successfully fed off of that continuing failure; alongside the opposite, war mongers who constantly desire to destroy social minded people that get in their way.

For the record, I am in France to attend the OECD Forum 2016 http://www.oecd.org/forum/ and the OECD Responsible Business Conduct conference. https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/globa...sinessconduct/ Anyone from iTulip also attending, will be pleased to touch base with you if at all possible.

[jk]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

i wish i thought sanders had a chance, but i am not prone to such optimism. i think the fix has been in for hillary for a long, long time. debbie wasserman schultz has been in the bag for hillary from day 1, thus the bizarre "debate" schedule among other things.

the superdelegates will not move toward sanders unless hillary is indicted between now and the convention. if california is a blow out for sanders this could change, but although bernie keeps beating her, it's not by enough to change superdelegates' minds. they assume sanders supporters can be given a pat on the head. told to get real, and to get in line for hillary. they foolishly think this will be a winning strategy. at least it's a conventional one that appeals to conventionally minded politicians in this very unconventional year.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Trump to win?

The more profound threads of thought in this form a good part of the warp and weft of "Requiem for the American Dream," a recently released documentary featuring Noam Chomsky. He pronounces his views of the effects of the escalating concentration of wealth and power in US society. See it on streaming Netflix.

[vt]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

"He's also the same Bernie Sanders who is on the right side of issues you've claimed to have supported for years, including ending the endless wars, breaking-up the banks and prosecuting the banksters, public funding of elections, an end to gerrymandering, and a program of broad and deep TECI/Infrastructure investment."

I've done all this plus working against racism and For civil rights in the 60's. While Bernie was out just protesting my Vista group was really working with the black poor in the early 70's by helping them build their own houses and get low interest loans, fighting the banks by helping save a low income credit union, working with teenagers and against the racism that still had pockets of resistance.

I've fought large corporate financial organizations and supported the fiduciary standard for years.

The problem with Bernie is he wants to create even more control and less freedom by his failed socialist ideas. Why trade failed corporate control with failed government control? Both are against freedom and competition.

Bernie's people want to punish success and demonize anyone who has owned a business. What a crock Warren, Sanders and their ilk are with no understanding of basic economics:

http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/factory-owner-speech/

Warren is pathetic:

"Warren and her husband, who have a combined net worth of approximately $15 million and a combined annual income (as of 2011) of almost $1 million, spent almost their entire careers at tax-exempt educational institutions which do not pay any taxes.[3] - See more at: http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/factory-owner-speech/#sthash.5GoEckqH.dpuf"

Warren falsely claimed native American heritage to get unfair advantage at Harvard for a professorship.

The leftists that spit on returning Vietnam vets who were forced into war by a Democrat administration are roadkill. The left that attack free speech at political rallies are criminal. I disagree strongly with many Trump policies but we cannot have attacks on freedom of speech or assembly. This applies equally to campuses where no speaker should be prevented from speaking. Right wing and left wing violence have no place in America.

The right and the left are both swine and need to be minimized within society. The independent movement is all about freedom in all of its facets. The left and the right don't care about the people; all they want is control to support their own sick agenda.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

how do you know this? is there any data available? i'd like to believe you're right, but....


Why are Catholics supporting Trump? - catholic.org



Catholics, Evangelicals Flocking to Trump - newsmax - "...A full 50 percent of Catholics in the Sunshine State voted for Trump, while only 33 percent voted for the Catholic, Sen. Marco Rubio. etc"

Why are Catholics Voting for Trump? - catholic world report. " [quoting ANOTHER article- "But there’s more. Trump isn’t simply dominating among Republican Catholics; he’s also drawing Catholic support from Democrats. According to Pew’s 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study, 37 percent of American Catholics are (or lean) Republican, while 44 percent are (or lean) Democrat. Yet pollster John Zogby noted earlier this year that, in Trump versus Clinton polling, “Trump is ahead among Catholics—a group that Democrats have won every election since 1992.”

The first 2 are about Catholics who vote in Republican Primaries. The Church is pretty well split and bipartisan. So if 50% of Catholics who were also Republican Primary Voters in Florida went Trump, that's not so far off from the almost 50% of the vote he got in Florida (if I'm remembering correctly...)

I always as a rule of thumb thought of it something like a third Dem, a third Rep, and a third Ind. But if it's actually 37% Rep or Ind (rep-leaning) and 44% Dem or Ind (dem-leaning), that wouldn't surprise me. Still leaves about 20% in the Independent column. What's going to matter is where they end up come November. The rest of the Church is partisan anyways, and most partisans do not change their minds or party preferences for anything.

If you dig into the Ipsos-Reuters data, you'll find this:

Protestant Vote (likely voters):



Catholic Vote (likely voters):



All Non-Protestant Vote (likely voters)






So it's very much in flux in these data. But it's early yet, so I wouldn't put too much stock in any of it. Still, over the last month, sometimes Trump is down 20 points among Catholics, sometimes he is dead even, one five-day period he was slightly ahead. But it looks like the overall trend is maybe +15 blue there. Romney got 48% of Catholics by comparison, McCain got 45%, W. Bush got 52% in 2004 and 47% in 2000. If anything close to this trend holds, it'll be the worst any Republican Presidential candidate has performed amongst Catholics in a long, long time.

But it's not the data or the trends I trust. Not in spring. It's more the chatter. What I see and hear. Where the buzzing sounds like it's coming from in the distance. I totally could be wrong.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

She is front and center. Our job is to push her toward a more reasonable social contract. I think Sanders is doing that and I think Warren is pushing her as well.

Clinton will bow to pressure from Sanders, Warren and the public by promising anything she thinks will get her elected, but she speaks with a forked tongue. The woman's a pathological liar and psychopath with absolutely no political conviction or conscience. With all respect, how can you believe any word that comes through her lips?

This is a false equivalency. Sanders is an honest broker. I don't agree with some of his ideas but comparing him to Trump demeans him. This is modern Jimmy Carter. A man too decent to be thrust into the presidency. Trump is a modern Mussolini, a man to despicable to be thrust on the world.

And Clinton is a modern Machiavelli. The reason why so many people distrust her is because she repeatedly proves that she cannot be trusted. To believe that Lady MacBeth will keep her word and work on our behalf once elected is to be hooked on Hopium. To hope that she will change her fundamental nature and not be so bad is the same pattern of deep denial exhibited by battered wives and children who have been abused into feeling powerless. This says more about the psychological state of American voters than it says Clinton.

Our society is an addictive, co-dependent family writ large. Abusive politician "addicts" in control, with millions of victim voter "enablers" feeling powerless, hoping and praying that the next time they're beaten it won't hurt too bad. Trump and Sanders supporters have snapped. They're ready to kick the bum out or burn the house down. Clinton supporters are in denial, believing the excuses and promises the abuser makes to keep the dance going.

[jk]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

Clinton will bow to pressure from Sanders, Warren and the public by promising anything she thinks will get her elected, but she speaks with a forked tongue. The woman's a pathological liar and psychopath with absolutely no political conviction or conscience. With all respect, how can you believe any word that comes through her lips?

meanwhile trump has come down on BOTH sides of every issue, provides no specifics so there's nothing to criticize, and people's confirmation bias lead them to think that what he REALLY wants is what they want.

clinton has a pretty consistent record - center to center-left to left on social policy, depending on the particular issue [now sounding more left overall because of current pressure], in the pocket of the banks, center-right on military- interventionist, pro-trade [she'll likely slip back in that direction once the pressure's off], center foreign policy, fiscally restrained, technocratic- a great believer in expertise. it doesn't matter, because she's going to lose.

[vt]

Re: Trump is a "small insecure money-grubber"

Good analysis DC, and I agree much is noise and speculation until we get to fall. Many are tuned out and probably almost as many turned off by the candidates and process.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

A must read:

Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is one of the most important, yet undiscussed issues of the 2016 election. Despite how long the media has been covering it, I don’t think most people really understand what’s going on. Almost everyone I know is genuinely unsure of what exactly she did wrong and as a result are more willing to accept the scandal as nothing more than a partisan, or sexist, effort to bring her down (me 3 days ago). The disinterest in the scandal seems to be cemented on the left as a result of Bernie Sanders refusing to attack her on the issue thus far in the campaign; something the Republican nominee will certainly do. So why are so many Republicans convinced this is a scandal that should topple the presumptive Democratic nominee for President? Do I really need to be worried?

Yes, you need to be worried.

Despite being a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. This article was intended to be a quick, digestable piece to help everyone get caught up on the scandal, but I really had no idea how complex this issue was. Here is the takeaway – I believe the FBI will refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for a violation of Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Code dealing with deletion, retention and transmission of classified documents. If prosecuted and convicted, the punishment would be some combination of a fine, a year in prison or 10 years in prison. The implications for the Presidential race will be discussed.

http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/op...d-information/

Orginal, longer form here.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Great find Woodsman.

Sanders supporters should not start to be excited too soon. The DNC is likely trying to delay this process as long as possible to have HRC get enough votes to insure nomination, then find a way to steer the vote to Biden or Warren to deny Sanders. Bernie is the outsider that they will not allow to win. Yes this will split the party but there is no longer a national Republican party either.

The right has lost to Trump who will now control most Republican voters and many independents. The left cannot win versus the DNC, and has no way of winning at the national level, but neither does the establishment wing.

We now have four parties with the left and right being marginalized to be a smaller part of the future. Hopefully the independent party we've been discussing will emerge to get enough votes to fight off the remnants of the Republican and Democrat parties in 2020 and beyond.

The next five months may be extremely volatile and unpredictable. Prepare to be on an emotional and intellectual roller coaster of electoral politics.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Great find...

It is. Folks should read it on their own and come to their own conclusions. And then share it far and wide.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

There are about 5 or 6 writers I trust in longform. This was just horrible. An endless wandering mess.

“I was LITERALLY ON one of the piers in San Francisco last summer.”

The whole thing is a giant selfie.

There are a few piece of interesting information, but you can’t write/edit this badly and expect anything but yawning and skimming.