Trump to win?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

You must have thought about Hedges, but you are going with blow-it-up Trump. Explain dismissing the former.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

You must have thought about Hedges, but you are going with blow-it-up Trump. Explain dismissing the former.

Explain.

Don't you mean explain again? Because that is what I have sought to do in dozens upon dozens of posts, in reference after reference, with analogy, simile, comparing, contrasting, on and on until exhaustion. And still, it's "please explain."

So one more time, with emphasis, until the next. Under Trump what will blow up is the political status quo, along with the extant GOP and Democratic parties, opening a door to substantive change - not guaranteeing it or determining its form, merely opening - that until now has remained firmly shut. Under Trump, Left Democrats find their voice, a common and unifying cause, begin to effectively push back the neoliberal assault led by the Clinton New Democrats, expose it forever as the flip-side of neoconservatism, and either initiates a process that restores the Democratic Party to its intellectual and moral foundations as set by FDR and JFK, or constructs something entirely new from the rubble. And so too does the GOP. From there all things follow.

I understand that most lose the capacity for nuance during the silly season and devolve to the moral and intellectual standard of George W. Bush - either with us or against us. That's too bad, but probably a component of human nature not subject to meaningful correction. Patrick Henry said "I know of no way of judging the future but by the past" yet we seem compelled to deny Hillary's past and so may miss a future that is entirely within our grasp. And by missing it, we may be granted an alternate few expect and all will rue. "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it."

The truth in all its anguish - surely recognition of it is what keeps us here at iTulip - is that we approach the end of this political economy and those arrangements to which we have put our attachments. Bill Clinton brought us to the beginning of the end; Bush Jr. and Obama to the the middle of the end. The Trumpsters could ring the curtain down on the whole farce and provide the opportunity to restore what should be restored and discard what never worked. But under HRC, we instead we will have 8 more years of ad-hoc crisis management deployed to preserve the desiccated corpse of the status quo and perhaps even reanimating it as a sort of zombie empowered by the death force of global war and domestic chaos.

And by slamming the lid on the boiling pot even harder, then stacking it with bricks, the pressure only grows. For surely under Hillary we shall see the emergence of a new, most virulent post-Trump that really does resemble the darkest dreams of those who see The Donald as a modern Hitler. And as Hillary's Wiemar Republic/Kerensky Provisional Government crashes down and the country and the world becomes even more dysfunctional, there will arise a movement the likes of which will cause us all to long for the "authentic Trump."

All that said, I admit this old man is running out of shits to give and looking forward to a return to the "salt life." Indeed, as did Trump, I "misunderestimated" the onslaught of the fearful and unimaginative defenders of their status and the status quo, surely the sine qua non of American liberalism in the 21st Century. Little wonder Clinton does as well as she does despite her numerous infirmities and near-universal distrust. But who wants to go to the trouble of thinking, much less original or unconventional thinking? For most, it's always better to fail conventionally than to win unconventionally. And it seems axiomatic that the more one gains by way of wealth, the more one loses by way of courage.

We seem so afraid, so timid and so easily cowed. Truly, the powers have nothing at all to fear.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

FBI finds 15,000 more emails Hillary didn't turn over:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

Some pretty damning info too:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...dation-donors/

You maybe find the same for a Jeb Bush, etc. but with Trump you don't know. Of course the Clinton's have a long history of pay to play going back to their White House days:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...es/lincoln.htm

I thought the White House and the State Department were owned by the taxpayers.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

You wouldn't know serious if it kissed you on your cheek, Santa.

You live in the Alice in Wonderland world of The Donald. In your world, a candidate who takes money for speeches to Goldman Sachs should be damned and The Donald, who owes Goldman tens of millions should be forgiven because he’s the “honest” one.

In your world, the candidate who takes money for a charitable foundation should be damned and The Donald who owes the Chinese government tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars should be pardoned. I know you think you’re the smart guy but you haven’t had a cogent thought in this discussion. Please don't point to that tired magical crap you feed TNotes.

And possibly you’d like to explain why The Donald’s tax returns will never be released. I’ll help you. A criminal cannot release their tax returns. That’s evidence and he lives on bombast and his followers live on magical thinking. You’re a bunch of angry old white guys who no longer control the country. For that, the rest of us are thankful.

Good new ad from the HRC PAC. Your boy is really a nasty little jerk. “You have to be wealthy in order to be great”. In a better world you would truly stand for nothing Woody. You fashion yourself as a nihilist but you support a naked oligarch, a racist and a self-described fascist.

You often describe those supporting HRC as fearful when it is you, fading into your final years, watching white supremacy fade, who fears the future.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

I predict the race will be tight right to the election and that the stock market will swing wildly in the three week leading up to it. Gold will hit 1750, and Metalman, Clue, and Barbara Lewis will come back to us.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...You often describe those supporting HRC as fearful when it is you, fading into your final years, watching white supremacy fade, who fears the future.

It's been gnawing at me, this icky feeling of recognition every time you purse your lips. And then it hit me. Santa, you're the Paul Lynde of iTulip! Only half as quick and twice as irritating.

Cupcake, for the sake of your gentle soul, I hope you get your every wish this Christmas... pardon, Election Day. How could your fragile little psyche handle it otherwise?

Hillary’s Hubris: Only Tell the Rich for $5000 a Minute!
by RALPH NADER

There is a growing asymmetry between the media’s mounting demands for Donald Trump to release his tax returns (Hillary has done so) and their diminishing demands that Hillary Clinton release the secret transcripts of her $5000 per minute speeches before closed-door banking conferences and other business conventions.

The Washington Post, an endorser of Clinton, in its August 18 issue devoted another round of surmising as to why Trump doesn’t want to release his tax returns—speculating that he isn’t as rich as he brags he is, that he pays little or no taxes, and that he gives little to charity. Other media outlets endorsing Hillary have been less than vociferous in demanding that she release what she told business leaders in these pay-to-play venues.

When asked last year about her transcripts on Meet the Press, she said she would look into it. When the questions persisted in subsequent months, she said she would release the transcripts only if everybody else did. Bernie Sanders replied that he had no transcripts because he doesn’t give paid speeches to business audiences. Nonetheless she continues to be evasive.

We know she has such transcripts. Her contract with these numerous business groups, prepared by the Harry Walker Lecture Agency, stipulated that the sponsor pay $1000 for a stenographer to take down a verbatim record, exclusively for her possession. .

The presidential campaign is moving into a stage where it will be harder for reporters to reach her. Except for a recent informal gathering with some reporters, Hillary Clinton, unlike all other presidential candidates, has not held a news conference since last December. This aversion to media examination does not augur well should she reach the White House. Secrecy is corrosive to democracy.

Why wouldn’t Hillary tell the American people, whose votes she wants, what she told corporations in private for almost two years? Is it that she doesn’t want to be accused of doubletalk, of “gushing” (as one insider told the Wall Street Journal) when addressing bankers, stock traders or corporate bosses? On the campaign trail Hillary only mimics Bernie Sanders’s tough, populist challenges to Wall Street. The Clintons are not known for answering tough questions or participating in straight talk. Dodging and weaving is what they do and too often they get away with it.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

It's been gnawing at me, this icky feeling of recognition every time you purse your lips. And then it hit me. Santa, you're the Paul Lynde of iTulip! Only half as quick and twice as irritating.

Cupcake, for the sake of your gentle soul, I hope you get your every wish this Christmas... pardon, Election Day. How could your fragile little psyche handle it otherwise?

I forgive you Woody. And when this political race is over, I hope you can forgive yourself for giving up on your country and its political system. I had a higher opinion of you than the crayon crowd but read your post…just Trump level insults. You’ve given up on the oldest democratic system in the modern world. I won’t do that.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I forgive you Woody. And when this political race is over, I hope you can forgive yourself for giving up on your country and its political system. I had a higher opinion of you than the crayon crowd but read your post…just Trump level insults. You’ve given up on the oldest democratic system in the modern world. I won’t do that.

Such a drama queen, Santa. A strategic vote for Trump to upset the political status quo and send Clintonism packing is hardly giving up on one's country and political system. Quite the opposite, one would think.

And the oldest extant democracies are Iceland and the Isle of Man and they are full of white people.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Such a drama queen, Santa. A strategic vote for Trump to upset the political status quo and send Clintonism packing is hardly giving up on one's country and political system. Quite the opposite, one would think.

And the oldest extant democracies are Iceland and the Isle of Man and they are full of white people.

the insult "such a drama queen" is gratuitous. the comment would have been better absorbed by readers without that insult.

the "full of white people" is provocative and as you are quite aware invites a racist interpretation. again the comment would have been more useful to readers without it. otoh, if you thought it important then it is important enough to include an explanation of the significance of "white people." otherwise it, too, is gratuitous and raises the question as to whether your intent is to communicate or to provoke. you might say both, but the two are in conflict.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Trump to win?

I predict the race will be tight right to the election and that the stock market will swing wildly in the three week leading up to it. Gold will hit 1750, and Metalman, Clue, and Barbara Lewis will come back to us.

At last -- a connection between this thread and our economic and investment interests!

The ad hominem arguments in almost every other post here, while initially colorful and a little entertaining, are increasingly tiresome. Pathetic that some of you can't make your point with insulting others.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

At last -- a connection between this thread and our economic and investment interests!

The ad hominem arguments in almost every other post here, while initially colorful and a little entertaining, are increasingly tiresome. Pathetic that some of you can't make your point without insulting others.

+1

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

At last -- a connection between this thread and our economic and investment interests!

The ad hominem arguments in almost every other post here, while initially colorful and a little entertaining, are increasingly tiresome. Pathetic that some of you can't make your point with insulting others.

When someone leads with it and counters with it,why should anyone be suprised that the volleys are returned. That they are then received with crocodile tears and a posture of victimhood., with cheers from the amen chorus, is pathetic, too, if unsuprising.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

When someone leads with it and counters with it,why should anyone be suprised that the volleys are returned. That they are then received with crocodile tears and a posture of victimhood., with cheers from the amen chorus, is pathetic, too, if unsuprising.

Sorry Woody, I am "White" and I found it immensely offensive, would have reacted immediately except that being a "cousin" from across the pond, felt it should be left to those of you directly within the debate, rather than those of us watching, admittedly sometimes enthralled by the intensity of the personalities involved. But there you went too far; way way too far.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Far how? Pointing out race is okay when someone is calling you a racist. But calling it out on defense of that slur is not? Sorry whitey. Brother Woodsman don't play that way. What's good for the goose...

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

the insult "such a drama queen" is gratuitous. the comment would have been better absorbed by readers without that insult.

the "full of white people" is provocative and as you are quite aware invites a racist interpretation. again the comment would have been more useful to readers without it. otoh, if you thought it important then it is important enough to include an explanation of the significance of "white people." otherwise it, too, is gratuitous and raises the question as to whether your intent is to communicate or to provoke. you might say both, but the two are in conflict.

Sure. You and Santa can raise race as a club and that is legitimate. Anyone who uses it to counter, is illegitimate.

You’re a bunch of angry old white guys who no longer control the country. For that, the rest of us are thankful.

Good new ad from the HRC PAC. Your boy is really a nasty little jerk. “You have to be wealthy in order to be great”. In a better world you would truly stand for nothing Woody. You fashion yourself as a nihilist but you support a naked oligarch, a racist and a self-described fascist.

You often describe those supporting HRC as fearful when it is you, fading into your final years, watching white supremacy fade, who fears the future.

You guys should open a Vegas casino. The house always wins!