Trump to win?

[seobook]

Re: Trump to win?

at just past 1 minute into the video, you can see where Assange shakes his head yes
https://youtu.be/Kp7FkLBRpKg?t=1m

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

+100





am really hoping this gets put to good use, as well:

And did you see fatty boy Beckel? Here Trump's recognition of "Second Amendment People" as being a powerful political block is knowingly misrepresented as a call for violence and it's all over the papers and just in time to misdirect folks from Hillary's endorsement by ISIS Gold Star daddy Seddique Mateen.



But let a Clinton spokesperson actually call for bloody murder and assassination on live television, well who the ufck cares about that, right?

“I mean, a dead man can’t leak stuff. The guy’s a traitor, a treasonist, and … and he has broken every law in the United States. The guy ought to be — and I’m not for the death penalty — so, if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it, illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”

Of course Assange is not an American so can't be a traitor to a country to which he holds no allegiance. He's actually not been charged with violating any US laws or any other crime whatsoever and Justice isn't really sure what to do about that. Still, the Clinton camp thinks Assange should be shot and better yet, extralegally, for the high crime of exposing Hillary's high crimes.

These people aren't democrats. They're not even Americans. They don't seem to love their country and have no affection for its people unless they happen to have an area code like 202, 703, 301 and 212. They've profited handsomely from the hollowing out of the country and relish at seeing Americans so hollowed out that they kill themselves with drugs, alcohol and the accumulated effects of despair to such a degree that the life span has actually declined.

Well molon labe, motherufcker.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

So many malignant forces who feel entitled to power are losing their grip on it, losing their grip on the official narrative they created. I wonder if Trump's lifespan can be counted in days or weeks...

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

So many malignant forces who feel entitled to power are losing their grip on it, losing their grip on the official narrative they created. I wonder if Trump's lifespan can be counted in days or weeks...

Shiny, please. Let's not go there. We can't go through something like that again and expect to come out of it anything like we were before it. I don't even want to contemplate it.

Although given the Orwellian events of the past 24 hours, I'm ashamed to say that I'm not so sure that it couldn't happen. The gloves are truly off and I think Trump is finally understanding what it is he's up against. Something this other Second Amendment Person didn't understand until it was too late.

“By calling attention to a well-regulated militia, the security of the nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding forefathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of government tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains a major declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

- JFK, April 1960

JFK, The NRA And The Second Amendment

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

when i heard trump's remarks about "second amendment people" maybe, "i don't know", having a way of stopping hillary's theoretical judicial appointments, i heard it on the radio without having heard the introduction by the broadcaster. my first thought was that this was an invitation to assassination. maybe it's my bias, but otoh he could have easily been clearer if he just meant organized political action. i believe he used deliberate ambiguity to provide fresh meat for his fans. he does this regularly- i believe he is vague to promote his audience's confirmation bias.

the shot of "isis gold star daddy" saddique mateen was taken from this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNiekZaals0
in which he says [fwiw] he wishes his son had gone into the army and fought isis. note also his singling out gun control as a reason to support the democrats. perhaps this is related to the fact that his son just committed a massacre with a gun. about his presence at the rally, he says he is a registered democrat and gets emails about all events in sponsored by the democratic party. he denies having received any special invitation, or being given any special seating.

of course this could all be a tissue of lies, but i don't see what would be in it for the clinton campaign to invite him in particular and to make sure he was in the same camera frame as hillary. do you?

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...of course this could all be a tissue of lies, but i don't see what would be in it for the clinton campaign to invite him in particular and to make sure he was in the same camera frame as hillary. do you?

It is a soiled tissue of lies, fetid and disease-ridden. I took one for the team and watched the entire Wilmington event. It's bullshit. A total misrepresentation enabled by editing, leading and suggestive commentary, false outrage, and repetition straight out of the Julius Streicher school of journalism.

Trump's Wilmington speech begins and ends with references to the Supreme Court and the threat to the Second Amendment should Clinton be elected.

"...Supreme Court justices. I guess there is a scenario where this president could pick five Supreme Court justices. And if you pick two that are left left left, it's going to be disaster for our country, your Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association endorsed me and they endorsed me early, long time ago, but, and they're great people. Wayne and Chris, they're great people. But if you uh if you do something with these uh, I tell you what, justices right now, you lost a great one with Scalia, we want to replace with justices very much like Justice Scalia, and uh that's gonna happen, it's so important, so, so if for no other reason, it's such an important, one of the most important elections, for a lot of reasons, not just that, but for a lot of reasons. And, but that's so obvious, because for whatever reason, they say this could be the presidency, this next four years, where you'll pick more Supreme Court justices than anybody has ever had the opportunity to do. And believe me, I'll make you very proud of those justices, they'll be good. Okay..."

That's the last we hear of the Second Amendment until nearly the end of his speech where he compares his plans to Hillary.

In it he returns to the theme on which he started, his intent to appoint judges that support the Second Amendment, his endorsement by the NRA, and the threat to Second Amendment rights posed by a Clinton administration. He makes the connection between the judges he will appoint and his defense of Second Amendment rights versus the judges HRC will appoint and her enmity toward them.

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, although the Second Amendment People, maybe there is, I don't know. But I tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If if Hillary gets to put in her judges, right now we're tied, you see what's going on. We're tied because Scalia was not supposed to happen. Justice Scalia was going to be around for ten more years at least. And this is what happens. That was a horrible thing. So now look at it. Hillary essentially wants to abolish the Second Amendment. Now, speaking to the NRA folks - who are great - when you, when you, and I'll tell you, so they endorsed me, they endorsed me very early. My son's a member, I'm a member. If you, we can add, I think the National Rifle Association, we can add the Second Amendment to the justices. They almost go, in a certain way, hand in hand. Now the justices are gonna do things that are going to do things that are so important, we have such great justices - you saw my list of 11 that have been vetted and respected, and I've gotten great uh - and they a little bit equate. But if you don't do what's the right thing, you're not gonna have, either you're not going to have a Second Amendment or you're not going to have much of it left and you're not going to be able to protect yourselves, which you need, which you need. You know, when the bad guys burst into your house they're not looking about Second Amendments and do I have the right to do this, okay. The bad guys aren't going to be giving up their weapons. But the good people will say, oh well, that's the law. No no, not going to happen. We can't let it happen. We can't let it happen."

Nothing he said in the entirety of the speech can be construed as a call to murder. It's a slander not only on Trump but every decent and law abiding person out there who values his American birthright. Understand, the affinity for the 2nd often aligns with folks who put their butts on the line for us in places none of us would want to go, places they don't want to go, but go each and every time it is asked of them. And to smear those people infuriates me more than I ever expected was possible. You are being played for a sucker if you believe the vile crap peddled in this story.

I was motivated to support Trump to avenge the Sanders kids and kick the DNC in the nuts, but this is rocket fuel, baby. You ever watch the old movie "Tora, Tora, Tora" when at the end Adm. Yamamoto says:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Absolutely goddamn right.

As for Daddy Jihad, nobody walks into a DHS/SS secured event and sits in the peanut gallery without being fully vetted. It's an invitation only gig and intended as a reward and motivation for local mucky-mucks, smaller donors or noted activists/organizers, and people who represent some of the themes embedded in the speech. You don't just walk in and say, hey, I'll just plant myself behind the candidate directly in the frame of the camera and least of all in events as small and scripted as HRC's whistle stops. This was planned and executed for effect; what precisely, I do not possess sufficient malevolent deviance to say.

My last word on it.

Coincidentally, I'm looking for a graphic designer to work up a few sample "Second Amendment Person" t-shirts and hat designs I intend to sell online and at Trump rallies. Anyone with experience and willing to share it, please PM me. There won't be much in the way of profit as I intend to give most of it to NRA and the Trump campaign, but if there's any interest in participation, feel free to reach out folks.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/1...autostart=true

[Verrocchio]

Re: Trump to win?

when i heard trump's remarks about "second amendment people" maybe, "i don't know", having a way of stopping hillary's theoretical judicial appointments, i heard it on the radio without having heard the introduction by the broadcaster. my first thought was that this was an invitation to assassination. maybe it's my bias, but otoh he could have easily been clearer if he just meant organized political action. i believe he used deliberate ambiguity to provide fresh meat for his fans. he does this regularly- i believe he is vague to promote his audience's confirmation bias.

Trump was either (1) urging so-called second amendment people to vote for him, (2) suggesting that they could (maybe) shoot Clinton, or (3) both. Listen to him speak again and read the transcript, carefully. How can anyone be certain about what he intended to convey? Trump has been lauded for his media skills, but he falls miserably short of the clear oral communication that I want to hear from a president.

By the way, you won't hear any further comments on the presidential race from me. I value iTulip as a forum for discussion of the economy and finance, and see social and political issues as appropriate topics only insofar as these affect the former.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump was either...

Some presidents read the words written for them in tones so dulcet and soothing, the lies slide effortlessly into our minds. We know we are being lied to, but don't care. I speak here of Obama, surely the most ablest and smoothest liar who ever held the office. Some speak in a jarring non-linear staccato reminiscent of a pop-corn maker and there I think one must be primed to accept the lies. Here the Bush family deserves honors.

Listening to Trump-speak is truly an exercise, as in strenuous work. I myself have never encountered such a thing and be assured neither has the media who cover him. I've watched about six hours of Trump speeches, uninterrupted and unfiltered and I find myself laughing out loud at the constructions, the rhythm and cadence that isn't really there. It's the verbal equivalent of atonal music the likes one might hear by Arnold Schoenberg or Alban Berg (with a yooge dose of Spike Jones) and not everyone can appreciate it. Truly he is unique and never before seen in modern American campaigns. I think this has much to do with the media's reactive hatred of the guy.

He does not "follow the rules" of campaigns and in doing so makes the work of a DNC propagandist (the title of "journalist" no longer applies) much harder than it would be otherwise. Trump has no "stump speech" and every event is different from the last. He repeats anecdotes like other candidates, but for the most part, each talk seems entirely extemporaneous, off the cuff, and unscripted. He has the confidence of someone long accustomed to being at the center of attention and interest, but none of the rhetorical skill you would expect of a presidential candidate.

But this too is a skill and clearly it works for him. Clearly, it has been a rip-roaring success to date. It is what people have come to expect. And connect he does. Less for what he says, and what he says is a curious mixture of old GOP tropes, really old Democratic Party tropes long since jettisoned from the party line, and folksy, regular-guy expressions. But more for the perception that it is "straight talk" and that more than anything else affirms the idea in people's minds that he is "one of us." It's also tailor made for a propagandist to distort and misrepresent, so is one of his most powerful tools while at the same time his biggest liability.

His voters eat it up and can't seem to get enough of it. I won't try to explain it, but real or not, true or not, his vulgate works because he is not addressing the media or the usual political suspects. He is taking his message directly to his voters and likely voters. In that respect, it borders on genius. He's not campaigning for votes from people like you, Verrocchio and the idea that people like you could ever possibly gain affinity for him by means of his speech and rhetoric is laughable.

It takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics to watch the tape and read the rush transcript (y'all are most welcome - you won't find one anywhere else) and come away with it as a call to bloody murder. And never would that repulsive idea have entered anyone's consciousness if it had not been manufactured by the DNC public-relations team covering the campaign. So in that respect, I think jk is correct that one's orientation to Trump has everything to do with accepting the propaganda. In that respect, the more vile the accusation the easier it is accepted by his opponents.

Consider it the "Caddyshack" election - the snobs against the slobs.

So of course you wouldn't like it, Judge Smails. It ain't for ya.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

I value iTulip as a forum for discussion of the economy and finance, and see social and political issues as appropriate topics only insofar as these affect the former.

Funny how all of that went out the window. Haven't bothered to change allocations in years (gold 8 %...stocks 25...bonds 25...cash 25...house is the rest), mainly because everything seems phony and completely unpredictable. Obviously, we all should have been in stocks for the last 8 years, but how could you know? You couldn't. I fell asleep at the wheel in 2000. I feel like paying attention now is like trying to pull an all-nighter.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MKb35NK0F0

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

It’s all true. Donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment at State.

Emails released by State, showing this, were not released by Clinton, even though they weren’t about yoga lessons and Chelsea’s wedding. Shocked, shocked, I know, but the Clinton Dynasty’s effrontery continues to amaze. Even though Judicial Watch isn’t on my side of the ideological prism, kudos to them for their patience and persistence in getting this material released. (The headlines, incidentally, show far too much deference.) Cue the “no quid pro quo” therefore no corruption crowd. (The irony of liberals accepting the doctrine of Citizens United to save their corrupt candidate is corrosive. Or not ironic at all. At this point, I’m not sure.)

“The new emails, released by the group Judicial Watch, offer fresh examples of how top Clinton Foundation officials [on behalf of big donors] sought [and gained] access to the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure.” [Wall Street Journal, “Newly Released Emails Highlight Clinton Foundation’s Ties to State Department “]. Huma’s three hats are interesting, too.

“The State Department has turned over 44 previously-unreleased Hillary Clinton email exchanges that the Democratic presidential nominee failed to include [attempted to conceal] among the 30,000 private messages she turned over to the government last year. They show her interacting with [pedding influence] lobbyists, political and Clinton Foundation donors and business interests as secretary of state.” [AP].

“New Emails Appear to Show Clinton Foundation Donors Called In Favors to State Dept” [LawNewz]. “Newly released State Department records, including previously unreleased emails from Huma Abedin, appear to show Clinton Foundation donors calling in favors from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

It’s all true. Donors to the Clinton Foundation got special treatment at State.

The irony of liberals accepting the doctrine of Citizens United to save their corrupt candidate is corrosive. Or not ironic at all. At this point, I’m not sure.

All I'll say is that it's absolutely neither shocking nor surprising that big donors get special treatment. That's why they donate big. It shouldn't be the case, and it shouldn't be excused, but our lovely Supreme Court decided that money was speech, so we live in an era where corruption is constitutional...actually, it seems to me that Citizens United actually says that not being corrupt is unconstitutional...

What is shocking is when a candidate doesn't give big favors to donors. Otherwise, it's standard operating procedure now.

I'd love to change it. I've spent time and money working on changing it.

But I simply cannot bring myself to be outraged or shocked that Citizens United and McCutcheon and the rest of the terrible Supreme Court decisions are doing exactly what they were intended to do! Roberts and Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Kennedy decided, the five of them, that the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment of the constitution guarantees the "right" to unlimited corruption and political bribery.

There was maybe one candidate that actually cared about doing something about Citizens United this election, but that candidate is long gone. As for the four that are left? 2 don't have a snowball's chance in hell and the other 2 don't give a damn.

But I still think Clinton, as money and power hungry as she possibly may be, is a better shot to fill that empty seat left by Scalia with someone who does not think spending unlimited money to bribe politicians is constitutionally protected speech. Because Trump's List of potential picks is filled with Fifth Circuit cowboys and kids that clerked for 5 guys who decided to make bribery and corruption Constitutional in the first place.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...But I still think Clinton, as money and power hungry as she possibly may be, is a better shot to fill that empty seat left by Scalia with someone who does not think spending unlimited money to bribe politicians is constitutionally protected speech. Because Trump's List of potential picks is filled with Fifth Circuit cowboys and kids that clerked for 5 guys who decided to make bribery and corruption Constitutional in the first place.

That's reasonable as always D.C. But makes no difference to me.

The primary goal is the destruction of the Democratic and Republican Parties and the upending of the political status quo. The secondary goal is ending the political viability of HRC. Trump is the instrument that can accomplish these. Nothing else matters at this point for me and all things follow from it. This year I am a political nihilist (as it seems is everyone else) and an anarchist in the mold of Gramsci.

"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

And don't believe that if either candidate is elected they will have their picks confirmed. We are through the looking glass. We haven't had a real budget in so many years I've lost count. So much for Article I, section 9, clause 7. The Senate has refused to fulfill its duty to advise the President and provide their consent under Article 2, section 2, clause 2, so there goes that one. And that's just off the top of my head.

We have no constitutional government and are operating under color of law but not under its rule. Anything goes. Until you folks recognize this, you will remain behind the curve and subject to manipulation and redirection. As for myself, I am keeping my eyes set firmly on the prize.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

A majority of Americans want to see Clinton's and Trump's tax and health records:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...edical_records