Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

this really is getting... uhhh... shall we say... very interestink....

from:
Glenn _Greenwald

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media

and - quite appropriately/fitting - from wall st on parade
Sanders Supporters Claim Clinton Campaign and AP Engaged in a Conspiracy – Complete With a “Secret Win” Code Name

can hardly wait to see more over at The ONLY Real News (that you aint gonna see on TV at 6pm) Outlet - like this one,
just fer instance:

EBT Card Outage? 8 Days Into June And Many Americans Are Still Waiting For Food Stamp Money

wonder if this is due to JPM (who apparently 'administers' a bunch of states EBT systems...)
squeezing the DNC for more 'ammunition against trump' (since dimon is a big booster for hitlery&co)

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

And where does this lead?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...orses-her.html

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

...With the Sanders supporters having been successfully other-ed as a non-Democrat, Democrat officialdom felt licensed to throw every small institutional obstacle in their way, opportunistically. From purging voter rolls of likely Sanders supporters, ballot gaming large and small, shrinking the number of polling places, long lines, no parking, deceptive signage, and so forth, these small obstacles add up to election fraud the old-fashioned way, with some high tech propaganda action by the AP.

That’s not to say that Sanders would have won; it is to say that our election apparatus is irremediably corrupt and should be brought up to world standards by removing it entirely from partisan control. Lets return to hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted, in public, for a start. In France, election polls are banned on polling day and the day before.” The United States should follow these civilized countries and do the same.

An updated 2016 version of hanging chads...

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/index/

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Where there is no vision, the people perish...

Elizabeth Warren endorses Hillary:

“I’m ready,” Warren said, according to the Globe. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e39a28acf9b6

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Trump to win?

Didn't Warren post a video where she accused HRC of first supporting her bill when she was first lady but then when she got into office she "forced the bill to be vetoed" because the interests had gotten a hold of her? It was some consumer protection bill.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

It appears that the Saudis are on the way to reach their real goal - a trump win?

Bye bye democrats.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...mocrats-217855

6 months on, now it appears that the Saudis have a change of heart, Trump appears to be a greater problem than the Democratic party?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

Elizabeth Warren endorses Hillary:

“I’m ready,” Warren said, according to the Globe. “I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e39a28acf9b6

so what - altho it's disappointing for me to say /ack this, it's just another 'birds of a feather' example - and - exactly like hitlery - merely proves she's just another demonrat 'exorcist grrl' (you remember, eh? that scene from the movie where the demon inside linda blair makes her head spin 360deg around on her shoulders while she hurls green vomit and shrieks 'yer mother s__ks c__ks in hell!')

kinda like most demonrat political hacks - depending upon what identity-group they're talking to, on what day - will spin their heads 360deg around, while talking out of both sides of their faces, as they twist themselves into pretzel-shapes to justify their idiot-logical PC fantasy du jour! (see: their latest positions on anti-israeli pro-PLO/westbank policies, never mind pro-islam, with its very anti-american, anti-women/gay rights stance - can you say 'pretzel logic' ? shur you can...)

Didn't Warren post a video where she accused HRC of first supporting her bill when she was first lady but then when she got into office she "forced the bill to be vetoed" because the interests had gotten a hold of her? It was some consumer protection bill.

BINGO!
(talk about perfectly pertinent headline timing - at ZH, this morning...)

2004 Flashback: Elizabeth Warren Describes Hillary Clinton As A Puppet For Wall Street

The credit card companies have [givent the most] money, and they have influence. [Hillary] has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.

and this one - in particular - is worth 'saving for posterity' here - talk about yer photo-ops and 'inconvenient truths' :

Hillary Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts from speeches that she gave to firms on Wall Street, however everyone (at least readers of this site) knows the reason, so they aren't necessarily needed. Clinton would be just as much in the hip pocket of banks as any other politician.


But don't take our word for it, take Elizabeth Warren's, the person cited as Hillary's most likely Vice Presidential candidate.

In an interview that is said to date back to 2004, Warren begins by explaining that she and then First Lady Hillary Clinton sat down and discussed the negative impacts a pending bankruptcy bill would have on women who were raising families. As a result of their meeting Warren said, Hillary went to work in the White House in order to stop the legislation, and ultimately influenced her husband to veto the bill when it came across his desk.

"She says, 'tell me about bankruptcy' - I go over the law, went over the economics, showed her the graphs, showed her the charts, and she got it."

"At the end of the conversation, Mrs. Clinton stood up, and she said professor Warren we've got to stop that awful bill."

"She went back to Washington and I heard later from someone who was a White House staffer that there were skid marks in the hallways when Mrs. Clinton got back as people reversed direction on that bankruptcy bill. When Mrs. Clinton came back with a little better understanding of how it all worked, they reversed course and they reversed course fast. And the proof is in the pudding. The last bill that came before President Clinton was that bankruptcy bill that was passed by the House and the Senate in 2000 and he vetoed it. In her autobiography Mrs. Clinton took credit for that veto and she rightly should."

However, as Senator Clinton, now entirely beholden to banks after generous contributions made to finance her campaign, her vote was different. Funny how that all works isn't it?

"One of the first bills that came up after she was 'Senator Clinton' was the bankruptcy bill - she voted in favor of it."

When asked why, Warren points out that as Senator the stakes are different, and Clinton didn't want to bit the hand that fed her, rather, funded campaign coffers (and of course would later pay Clinton millions to give speeches - it's always important to have an eye toward the future).

"As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well financed industry. A lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals, it was consumer credit products. Those are the people, the credit card companies that have been giving money, and they have influence. She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."

Warren concludes with some truthiness about just how cutthroat banks and other lobbyists will be in order to drain the middle class out of every penny they may have.

"You know this is the scary part about Democracy today. We're talking again about the impact of money. The credit industry on this bankruptcy bill has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying, and as their profits grow they just throw more into lobbying for how they can get laws that will make it easier and easier and easier to drain money out of the pockets of middle class families"

Ironically she is now endorsing - and likely about to become the vice presidential candidate - of the one candidate who exemplifies just how "for sale" US politicians are to big money corporations and financial lobbies.

Full Interview.



And for those who missed it, here is the complete breakdown Of every Hillary And Bill Clinton speech, and fee, since 2013.
Hillary:

And Bill:

And a visual representation of the above:
Hillary:

Bill:

any questions?

any at all, anybody?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

lek, i don't read your posts; i concluded some time ago that they're rants and not interesting to me. the only reason i clicked on this thread that showed you as writing a new post was the possibility that someone else had posted something new before you posted. i scrolled down past your post and just noted it ended "any questions." my question, to which i don't really know the answer, is whether ANYBODY reads your posts. you might think about whether you are in fact getting responses, and if so, from whom. if you do get responses from some members, i guess that's your community. my community here writes different kinds of posts than yours.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

lek, i don't read your posts; i concluded some time ago that they're rants and not interesting to me. the only reason i clicked on this thread that showed you as writing a new post was the possibility that someone else had posted something new before you posted. i scrolled down past your post and just noted it ended "any questions." my question, to which i don't really know the answer, is whether ANYBODY reads your posts. you might think about whether you are in fact getting responses, and if so, from whom. if you do get responses from some members, i guess that's your community. my community here writes different kinds of posts than yours.

Elizabeth Warren is a smart politician. I'm sure she understands she will have much more influence as a progressive friend of the candidate than as an outsider chastising HRC for her past indiscretions. There is a lot of talk regarding her as VP but I'll be surprised if the first possible woman President will want an even stronger woman as VP. With regard to VP, Warren, Sherrod Brown and Cory Booker all have two other serious drawbacks; they have the same East Coast constituencies as HRC and they are all sitting US Senators.

The Democratic Party has every intention of keeping the Executive branch and taking back the Senate to ensure they appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Their odds are good in 2016 but the last thing I think they want to do is remove one of their own from the Senate. All three are massively popular with Democrats and represent the progressive wing of the party. So who does that leave? HUD Secretary, Hispanic, Catholic, Harvard Law, not-so-progressive, ex San Antonio Mayor and loyal Clinton supporter, Julian Castro. He's far from the perfect choice but he checks off so many boxes, I'll be surprised if he's not the choice.

And I'll add one more thing, the first black person, Hispanic person or woman to take the office of President or Vice President, will have to be very centrist to have a chance of pulling centrist independents into the party.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i'd love to see al franken on the dem ticket. see the link for the argument for this. further, minn. has a democratic gov to appoint his successor. further, the rust belt is likely to be a battleground. and it would be a hoot.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

lek, i don't read your posts; i concluded some time ago that they're rants and not interesting to me. the only reason i clicked on this thread that showed you as writing a new post was the possibility that someone else had posted something new before you posted. i scrolled down past your post and just noted it ended "any questions." my question, to which i don't really know the answer, is whether ANYBODY reads your posts. you might think about whether you are in fact getting responses, and if so, from whom. if you do get responses from some members, i guess that's your community. my community here writes different kinds of posts than yours.

+1 and thank you, jk. It needed to be said.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." If one subscribes to Churchill's definition, Lek's posts are obsessive rants by a fanatic venting his ever-more HYSTERICAL RAGE at HIGH VOLUME. I tried for years to read them, but SHOUTING in GIANT CAPS, bi-ZARRE mys-spellings and undescribed hyperlinks simply called "this" "and this" required too much time and effort to pull the signal from all the noise. Just seeing his posts is like a SLAP IN MY FACE!!!!!

Still I tried because he seemed a decent guy at heart (only a decent person would be so outraged by the indecency and injustice of our political-economic system). But recently he descended into spewing racist, sexist slurs. I will not abide that. If I disagree with, or even despise Obama, Hillary or anyone else it's because of their actions, not their race or gender. There is no justification EVER for racism or misogyny, especially here. When he did that I gave up and put him on my (very short) ignore list. But I am concerned for him.

lek, perhaps this is where you vent so that you don't go postal but if so, it's not a healthy solution. Obsession, fanaticism and rage work in the brain just like addictions. The comfort of finding confirmation bias, the rush of righteous indignation, these things trigger a dopamine response in the brain just like a hit of cocaine. Addictive emotions will never be satisfied no matter how much you indulge them. They will only get worse.

Addictions gradually consume a person until nothing good remains. From what I've read of you lately, obsession, fanaticism and rage appear to be consuming you. I hate to see you going down this road.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

+1 and thank you, jk. It needed to be said.

... From what I've read of you lately, obsession, fanaticism and rage appear to be consuming you. I hate to see you going down this road.

sigh...
et tu, ms shiny?

as IF - like, i've been the only one?

altho not sure where i've been 'spewing racist, sexist slurs' - while my condemnation of the admin has been anything but racist or sexist, mostly CRIMINAL - its becoming more obvious by the day that even mere mention of certain 'identity sensitive' topics gets one tarred n feathered by the PC gestapo - esp lately, when anything even resembling 'free speech' in The US has been all but wiped out - by the very people who scream the loudest about it - esp when, that is, it suits their politix ie:

only certain types of speech, approved by the PC crowd - are OK?

and now, quite sadly, the PC-censorship brigade has even overun the itulip.

congratulations!

guess now i'm feeling like woody does (or did) when he was complaining about (some of) the 'in crowd' - of the usual dozen or so posters - 'shouting' him down all the time - tho i didnt always agree with his take on things, i always respected his vast historical knowledge/perspective and his right to say his piece, which he ALWAYS did - quite eloquently, convincingly and persuasively at that (sincere compliment, woody)

and would/could never have even thought of telling anybody here they werent welcome...

sorry for having offended you - or anyone else - with my rage against the political machine.

guess i'll just stop posting, like most others have - esp since Mr J no longer has the time - and maybe stop in to read (the free stuff) once in awhile, so y'all can enjoy your echo chamber without my witty repartee.

oh and BTW - i AM a 'decent guy', a 'nice guy' even - or so i've been told - who'd rather rant/rave, scream/holler via the typed word - than break things and hurt people - one who has been more or less wiped out - emotionally as much as financially - by the political/PC economy of the last 8 years - there sure as hell hasnt been ANY 'recovery' for a lot of us (middle aged white guys, as in: 'the mancession' is still going strong) - tween obozo care wiping out the job market (for us middle aged white guys), with ZIRP, in particular - wiping out my formerly profitable small biz -

while watching, HOPING for any sign of 'justice' being delivered unto the criminal class of lwr manhattan?

all we get is MORE CORRUPTION from the likes of slimeball carpetbagging opportunists such as the hitlery & obozo show.

and if that comment somehow makes me 'racist and sexist' ?

maybe one should consider joining the delicate snowflake club and crawling into their safe space.

ta ta!

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

I sympathize with your loss, lek, but you're not the only one who lost a business. I lost my business in the Volker recession. Millions of people have lost jobs and homes since 2008. Millions of people endure losses far worse than the loss of their business- I'm one of them. I think it's safe to say that everyone who's a member of iTulip is concerned about corruption in politics and the state of our country or else we wouldn't be here.

We're not responsible for a lot of the bad things that happen to us. But we're totally responsible for how we we allow ourselves to be affected by misfortune. To wallow in resentment and rage because you lost your business and you don't like the way the country is being run is a choice you are making. You're only hurting yourself.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Lektrode's posts aren't rants but documentation of the utter failure of the main street press to be objective and call our BOTH parties not just one. Just because he uses different typesets and some color every now and then should not have posts labeled as rants.

As I've said here before Americans hate the parties and hate the press. The numbers don't lie:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/de...ical-lows.aspx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ery-bad-thing/

Lek has simply been pointing out the lack of interest of the biased press and some members here of the criminal behavior and free pass this administration gets.