Trump to win?

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Hillary with the Ultrarich:

While Trump gets standing ovation at black church:

I do think you've defined The Donald's problem. He would much rather stump with folks who won't vote for him than work to gather new constituents. In a more normal election the Dems have to fight for the "Ultrarich" and Republicans have to fight for the African American vote. Both usually fight for the Latino vote and that vote swings both ways. Not this time. African Americans, 90% to 1%. Latinos 75% to 17%. Of course the white nationalist vote is 100% for The Donald. Thankfully this is not the election of 1852 or 1856.

He's getting his butt kicked in Florida, Ohio, and PA and he doesn't care. I don't really think he's running for President, he's running to be the new Klan king. Before you and your bros get out your crayons, think about it. He's working to throw this election away. Clinton is really disliked but she's a brilliant campaigner. All of her press interviews are local and focused. She's had about 300 so far this year but none with the Washington media. I know you hate both the Washington media and Clinton so the dissonance must be acute.

Only time will tell but my take on The Donald is that he's running for Grand Wizard or Imperial Wizard. I don't think it's an exaggeration to think 10% of the US population is white nationalist and willing to resurrect the failed ideology of the KKK. The Donald is doubling down on white racism. It's his new beautiful Trump Tower.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

. I don't really think he's running for President, he's running to be the new Klan king..

a more plausible version of this says that between roger ailes, late of fox news, and steve bannon of breitbart, he'll be starting a right wing media empire down the road. on second thought, maybe that's just another way of saying the same thing you just said.



meanwhile,
http://adventuresincapitalism.com/po...k-vs-Jerk.aspx

Crook vs. Jerk

September 4, 2016 12:51 AM

---

“For a country with over 300 million people, why do you choose such bad politicians?”

Yup, I’ve been doing business overseas for a while now and I keep getting the same question from foreigners who simply cannot decipher the American political system. Heck, I often ask myself the same questions.

A few years ago, I had this conversation;
Him: Will George W. Bush invade my country?
Me: Don’t worry, he can’t find it on the map...

Fast forward 8 years;
Him: Why is your Nobel Prize winning President starting wars with everyone, including a race war in America?
Me: Hell if I know. It’s embarrassing to all of us in America.

In all these exchanges, I can chuckle, drink my beer and proudly say that I didn’t vote for them. However, as I go through my daily rounds, this year’s election is just too dysfunctional to laugh at.

On one hand, we have the most corrupt person to ever run for President of the United States. From the Clinton Initiative slush fund financed with illegal dealings with corrupt overseas oligarchs and villains to the stonewalling of numerous federal investigators she continues to operate like some post-Soviet apparatchik. In order to deflect criticism of her past, she has incited a race war that is both disturbing and repulsive to all that America stands for. Her utter subjugation of the media is both shameful and astonishing. Google has changed its search ranking system, Twitter routinely censors her opponent’s supporters, and The New York Times has become a ministry of propaganda. Joseph Goebbels could only dream of the sort of power that she wields. Her methods are anathema to the American system of transparency, honesty and an independent press. With that said, I have to give her credit. Through 30 years of scandal, illicit dealings, and outright felonious behavior; she has remained remarkably untouchable, whereas a lesser politician would have been incarcerated long ago. Cold, shrewd, ruthless and calculated—lord knows, she wants the Presidency worse than anyone else alive. Her determination really is impressive.

Offsetting this criminality is quite possibly the biggest jerk on earth. As a guy growing up in New York, I remember that every society paper was filled with his endless feuds. Every business paper was full of his lawsuits and those who were counter-suing him. Abrasive, inconsiderate and offensive have been hallmarks of his self-promotion. Nothing is more humiliating than being fired before millions of viewers on television—yet, he reveled in that power. Now, on the national stage, he has taken this offensiveness to new levels by insulting whole countries. Does he have a filter? No, he actually enjoys the fight. Is he the image that America wants to project globally? Or course not.

And, as I sit on a patio and drink my beer, I have to explain this all to my foreign friends. I’ve tried to illuminate the nuances and dive into the details but in the end, this election is about two words—Crook vs. Jerk. America’s most notorious Crook is up against America’s most notorious Jerk. Who do you want running your country? Crook or Jerk?

Explained in those terms, most foreigners take a deep breath and come up with some version of the following, “We all look up to America and your desire for transparent and honest politicians. What separates my country, with its chaos, from yours is the fact that your politicians are honest.” To that, I laugh a bit because America has done a great job of brainwashing the world with its propaganda. Our career politicians are as corrupt as any banana republic’s, except ours usually steal in the name of the large corporations that finance them—as opposed to their own families. Only true outsiders from the political mainstream, those who’ve never been part of the system, can say that they’re not beholden to any special interest or corporation.

So, does Jerk beat Crook? Or does the Crook steal the election? Thankfully, I do most of my business overseas—I’ll survive no matter what the outcome is. As an American, I sure wish we had better choices, but I still have to explain this election to everyone I meet. Crook vs. Jerk sums it up. To most of my friends, mired in corrupt and dysfunctional systems, America is a beacon of hope. Too bad it seems as though Crook is leading in the polls.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

It's rather vile, but Santa and JK are just following Hillary's and the DNC's lead. They stuck us with the most unpopular, most hated, most distrusted politician in American politics, exceeding the worst of Nixon and Johnson.The only way to make that work out is to do and say anything, anything at all, to make her opponent seem worse. And so they chose to paint him in the most absurd tones, completely unmoored from any reality. They declare Trump to be a Hitler, a Nazi, a fascist, a Russian agent, a KKK leader, a virulent racist, and a child rapist. It's a less than clever psyop intended to capitalize on basic human needs and insecurities and is about the ugliest campaign strategy ever deployed against the American electorate. Their approach is to meet every question or assertion with accusations of racism so as to impress on potential Trump voters that any overt support will make them anathema and subject them to social isolation and approbation. That's such a uniquely toxic accusation that it makes any real conversation hopeless. Cognitively, the only way most people respond is to deny everything, and that in turn forces the victims of these attacks to believe that liberals are lying and slandering for their own partisan ends. This feeds the vicious cycle and everyone withdraws one step more. It destroys any chance of discourse (which liberals claim to champion) but in the same ends justify means fashion we expect from the Clintons and their partisans, it is thought to be the only way to keep Hillary's nagatives from overwhelming her chances.The conversation between me and the situational twins ended when they asserted that 2+2 ceased to be 4 and would remain whatever number it is required to be until Hillary is elected. Snowball and Napoleon love walking on their hind legs no matter how ridiculous they look to everyone else. Once I understood that, well the frightened snorts of the bad pig Napoleon and the sweet bleat of the good pig Snowball barely register. When it gets loud enough to get my attention, it just makes me chuckle like all those silly barnayard sounds do.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

"I don't really think he's running for President, he's running to be the new Klan king. Before you and your bros get out your crayons, think about it."

Are you calling me a racist? You'd better not because you destroy all your credibility on this forum.

I have stated time and again I don't like Trump or Clinton, nor the Republicans or Democrats.

If Clinton loses you and others like you that race bait will own responsibility. And the quote from you above is race baiting and abhorrent.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

.The conversation between me and the situational twins ended when they asserted that 2+2 ceased to be 4 and would remain whatever number it is required to be until Hillary is elected. Snowball and Napoleon love walking on their hind legs no matter how ridiculous they look to everyone else. Once I understood that, well the frightened snorts of the bad pig Napoleon and the sweet bleat of the good pig Snowball barely register. When it gets loud enough to get my attention, it just makes me chuckle like all those silly barnayard sounds do.

saying someone is distorting reality is not the same as pointing out the way they do it. comparing someone to a character from animal farm also doesn't identify their distortions.

and i thought the conversation ended when, rather than reply to my request that you point out how i had invoked race, you told me to kiss your white scots-irish ass. it appears you'd rather name-call than engage in a discussion.

my expectation is that you'll do it again in response to this post, but i am ever hopeful that the tone can change. i rarely engage in optimism of any kind, let alone what appears to be foolish optimism, but i so value the itulip community, and value your knowledge in particular, woodsman, to keep trying.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

I do think you've defined The Donald's problem. He would much rather stump with folks who won't vote for him than work to gather new constituents. In a more normal election the Dems have to fight for the "Ultrarich" and Republicans have to fight for the African American vote. Both usually fight for the Latino vote and that vote swings both ways. Not this time. African Americans, 90% to 1%. Latinos 75% to 17%. Of course the white nationalist vote is 100% for The Donald. Thankfully this is not the election of 1852 or 1856.

He's getting his butt kicked in Florida, Ohio, and PA and he doesn't care. I don't really think he's running for President, he's running to be the new Klan king. Before you and your bros get out your crayons, think about it. He's working to throw this election away. Clinton is really disliked but she's a brilliant campaigner. All of her press interviews are local and focused. She's had about 300 so far this year but none with the Washington media. I know you hate both the Washington media and Clinton so the dissonance must be acute.

Only time will tell but my take on The Donald is that he's running for Grand Wizard or Imperial Wizard. I don't think it's an exaggeration to think 10% of the US population is white nationalist and willing to resurrect the failed ideology of the KKK. The Donald is doubling down on white racism. It's his new beautiful Trump Tower.

Oh, goddess. I know I'll regret kicking this hornets nest...

No matter what Trump says or who he says it to, it appears your mind is already made up. If he speaks to a white audience he's a white supremacist. You say he should gather new constituents, but when he speaks to a black audience to do just that, he's just stumping with folks who won't vote for him. No matter what he says to the contrary, in your view Trump is always doubling down on white racism. You seem to be polarized to such a degree that when Trump behaves well and speaks well, you ignore it and claim he did the opposite.

When Trump pivots towards Republican pro-Wall Street, pro-big business policies; when he puts racist conservatives on his staff, when he doesn't rein in the xenophobia at his rallies (remember, I'm a Sikh)... that concerns me as much as it concerns you.

Conversely, when Clinton refuses to tell us what she promised to Wall Street in exchange for millions of dollars; when she commits federal crimes that would land you or me in jail and laughs it off; when she seeks the support of people who believe in Taqiya, people who want to see you and me either dead or living under Sharia law, when her top aide and confidant is the daughter of one of those people... these things concern me greatly and they should concern you, too. But you don't care.

Why the double standard between Trump and Clinton? Why the double standard of hating racism while tolerating sexism? Isn't this adherence to beliefs regardless of facts the very definition of prejudice? Don't you hate prejudice?

Whatever else you think about Trump, he is 100% correct about the danger of allowing Sharia law to spread in this country. Any non-muslim who thinks that Sharia law can co-exist peacefully in America clearly doesn't understand what it is and doesn't understand how Taqiya works.

I understand that for you, racism is the biggest problem we face as a nation. You believe all of Trump's white supporters are racists and xenophobes; you find this intolerable. Yet as you explained in that earlier post, you don't feel the same degree of outrage about sexism.

Don't you know, discrimination and brutality against women and girls are as destructive as racial injustice and brutality, but far more prevalent.

No matter our race or social strata, too many women are beaten and battered by men; too many boys grow up thinking this is the way to treat women; too many girls grow up thinking it's normal to be abused.

Too many girls are incested by their fathers, too many children with absentee fathers are raised by poor, single mothers.

Too many elderly women suffer in poverty because we only get a fraction of the social security that men get, because we only earned a fraction of what men earn during our working lives.

Rappers call us bitches and hoes and win Grammy awards. Even in this usually civil forum, derogatory comments about our bodies get chuckles from men who would shout down racial insults in a heartbeat.

As a women who has survived much abuse at the hands of men, should I hate you for your hypocrisy, your sex and the male privilege that you take for granted? I don't, but I don't respect you for it either. How does it feel when I use the same yardstick to judge you that you use to judge whites that unconsciously take white privilege for granted? Take everything you think about black discrimination, apply it to women and see the hypocricy of your double standard:

Before the O.J. Simpson verdict, pundits in the media worried about blacks rioting around the country if he were to be convicted. No one expressed concern about women rioting around the country if he were to be acquitted. It's always this way. No one considers the possibility of women rioting because society takes our patience and acceptance of abuse for granted. But if you told those pundits (and the audience that unthinkingly agreed with them) that they were being sexist, half of them would have denied it while the other half would have said, "Will you stop with the womens lib stuff? Race relations are a serious problem right now!"

We women were on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement. We were on the front lines of the protests to end the draft, to save your male asses during Vietnam. Women are on the front lines of Black Lives Matter, willing to get gassed and clubbed and shot. Where are you in the fight for our dignity? Not interested... Not your battle... Maybe later... If we fight we're on our own. We should go sit at the back of the bus.

Having witnessed your sexism repeatedly throughout this thread, you'll have to forgive me for taking your racial outrage and moral superiority with a huge grain of cynicism.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Well written Shiny. You have defined the War on Women in totality.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

Well written Shiny. You have defined the War on Women in totality.

Brilliant! + 100

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Thanks, guys. I was expecting flames (still might get 'em!)

So... I despise Clinton and the Democrat party. I despise the Republican party. I like Trump (who's not really a Republican) on some issues but fear him on others. I've voted Libertarian every election since 1980, but Gary Johnson lost my vote when he came out in favor of the TPP. I like Stein's vibe and some of her views, shake my head in disbelief at some of her other views as she completely contradicts herself, but ultimately can't vote for someone who wants more gun control. Looks like I'll be voting for "None of the Above!"

Wouldn't it be cool if "None of the Above!" got the majority of votes? Wonder what would happen then?

[davidstvz]

Re: Trump to win?

I do think you've defined The Donald's problem. He would much rather stump with folks who won't vote for him than work to gather new constituents. In a more normal election the Dems have to fight for the "Ultrarich" and Republicans have to fight for the African American vote. Both usually fight for the Latino vote and that vote swings both ways. Not this time. African Americans, 90% to 1%. Latinos 75% to 17%. Of course the white nationalist vote is 100% for The Donald. Thankfully this is not the election of 1852 or 1856.

He's getting his butt kicked in Florida, Ohio, and PA and he doesn't care. I don't really think he's running for President, he's running to be the new Klan king. Before you and your bros get out your crayons, think about it. He's working to throw this election away. Clinton is really disliked but she's a brilliant campaigner. All of her press interviews are local and focused. She's had about 300 so far this year but none with the Washington media. I know you hate both the Washington media and Clinton so the dissonance must be acute.

Only time will tell but my take on The Donald is that he's running for Grand Wizard or Imperial Wizard. I don't think it's an exaggeration to think 10% of the US population is white nationalist and willing to resurrect the failed ideology of the KKK. The Donald is doubling down on white racism. It's his new beautiful Trump Tower.

You've been consuming way too much left-wing media if this is what you're thinking.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh, goddess. I know I'll regret kicking this hornets nest...

No matter what Trump says or who he says it to, it appears your mind is already made up. If he speaks to a white audience he's a white supremacist. You say he should gather new constituents, but when he speaks to a black audience to do just that, he's just stumping with folks who won't vote for him. No matter what he says to the contrary, in your view Trump is always doubling down on white racism. You seem to be polarized to such a degree that when Trump behaves well and speaks well, you ignore it and claim he did the opposite.

When Trump pivots towards Republican pro-Wall Street, pro-big business policies; when he puts racist conservatives on his staff, when he doesn't rein in the xenophobia at his rallies (remember, I'm a Sikh)... that concerns me as much as it concerns you.

Conversely, when Clinton refuses to tell us what she promised to Wall Street in exchange for millions of dollars; when she commits federal crimes that would land you or me in jail and laughs it off; when she seeks the support of people who believe in Taqiya, people who want to see you and me either dead or living under Sharia law, when her top aide and confidant is the daughter of one of those people... these things concern me greatly and they should concern you, too. But you don't care.

Why the double standard between Trump and Clinton? Why the double standard of hating racism while tolerating sexism? Isn't this adherence to beliefs regardless of facts the very definition of prejudice? Don't you hate prejudice?

Whatever else you think about Trump, he is 100% correct about the danger of allowing Sharia law to spread in this country. Any non-muslim who thinks that Sharia law can co-exist peacefully in America clearly doesn't understand what it is and doesn't understand how Taqiya works.

I understand that for you, racism is the biggest problem we face as a nation. You believe all of Trump's white supporters are racists and xenophobes; you find this intolerable. Yet as you explained in that earlier post, you don't feel the same degree of outrage about sexism.

Don't you know, discrimination and brutality against women and girls are as destructive as racial injustice and brutality, but far more prevalent.

No matter our race or social strata, too many women are beaten and battered by men; too many boys grow up thinking this is the way to treat women; too many girls grow up thinking it's normal to be abused.

Too many girls are incested by their fathers, too many children with absentee fathers are raised by poor, single mothers.

Too many elderly women suffer in poverty because we only get a fraction of the social security that men get, because we only earned a fraction of what men earn during our working lives.

Rappers call us bitches and hoes and win Grammy awards. Even in this usually civil forum, derogatory comments about our bodies get chuckles from men who would shout down racial insults in a heartbeat.

As a women who has survived much abuse at the hands of men, should I hate you for your hypocrisy, your sex and the male privilege that you take for granted? I don't, but I don't respect you for it either. How does it feel when I use the same yardstick to judge you that you use to judge whites that unconsciously take white privilege for granted? Take everything you think about black discrimination, apply it to women and see the hypocricy of your double standard:

Before the O.J. Simpson verdict, pundits in the media worried about blacks rioting around the country if he were to be convicted. No one expressed concern about women rioting around the country if he were to be acquitted. It's always this way. No one considers the possibility of women rioting because society takes our patience and acceptance of abuse for granted. But if you told those pundits (and the audience that unthinkingly agreed with them) that they were being sexist, half of them would have denied it while the other half would have said, "Will you stop with the womens lib stuff? Race relations are a serious problem right now!"

We women were on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement. We were on the front lines of the protests to end the draft, to save your male asses during Vietnam. Women are on the front lines of Black Lives Matter, willing to get gassed and clubbed and shot. Where are you in the fight for our dignity? Not interested... Not your battle... Maybe later... If we fight we're on our own. We should go sit at the back of the bus.

Having witnessed your sexism repeatedly throughout this thread, you'll have to forgive me for taking your racial outrage and moral superiority with a huge grain of cynicism.

i posted harris kupperman's "crook vs jerk" above to summarize my own assessment of the candidates. [kupperman, aka "kuppy," is a friend and sometime investment partner of bill fleckenstein, which is how i learned of him.]

fwiw, given the choice of crook vs jerk, i hold my nose and pick "crook" because there are, imo, too many dangerous unknowns about "jerk." as kuppy says, it's hard to believe, but a sad, sad reality, that in a country of over 300million people, these two are the candidates we come up with.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

...fwiw, given the choice of crook vs jerk, i hold my nose and pick "crook" because there are, imo, too many dangerous unknowns about "jerk." as kuppy says, it's hard to believe, but a sad, sad reality, that in a country of over 300million people, these two are the candidates we come up with.

Yes, it is difficult to believe. But perhaps it is the product of a very long, self-reinforcing cycle, where our politics (I say 'our' because Canada is catching up fast) has fallen into disrepute due to declining quality of candidates and leadership, and that in turn dissuades future candidates of competence and quality from entering the profession.

The inability of the current governing party in Alberta to attract even minimally sufficient talent at all levels has become blatantly obvious, and this is severely hampering its ability to respond and deal with the most challenging of economic and social circumstances.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

i posted harris kupperman's "crook vs jerk" above to summarize my own assessment of the candidates. [kupperman, aka "kuppy," is a friend and sometime investment partner of bill fleckenstein, which is how i learned of him.]

fwiw, given the choice of crook vs jerk, i hold my nose and pick "crook" because there are, imo, too many dangerous unknowns about "jerk." as kuppy says, it's hard to believe, but a sad, sad reality, that in a country of over 300million people, these two are the candidates we come up with.

Sad, yes, but we didn't come up with the crook, at least. The fix was in for crook to be the Dem. candidate no matter what the people wanted. Not to say that Sanders would have beaten her in fair, democratic primaries, but due to DNC/HRC "crook"edness corrupting the democratic process, we'll never know. Sanders went off-script by refusing to accept that it was "her turn," and by talking about issues the Republocrats didn't want him to talk about. The HRC/DNC/MSM machine managed to defeat him. In doing this for the crook, the Democrat party seriously damaged its brand.

The Republocrat plan was to field a safe, boring, Bush-like candidate against Clinton so it wouldn't matter who won; the results would be more or less the same for the 99%. The jerk blew in and didn't follow the script. After the Republicans stopped laughing, they panicked. Using the propaganda arm of government they threw everything they had at him, but lost control to the great unwashed.

In the same way that Sanders couldn't quite break the Democrat fix for the crook, I don't think any outsider more normal or palatable than the jerk could have broken the Republican fix. It required an unpredictable, hypomanic Master Persuader with a seriously high IQ and copius amounts of money to do it.*

The Republocrat party is badly wounded, but like a wounded animal it is now at its most dangerous. Like the Soviets, they put on an election play for many years to give people the illusion that we have choices and our votes matter, but like the Soviets, they can't handle, and more importantly won't tolerate, real democracy at all.

If the MSM can't destroy the jerk for the crook, I think it's likely that one or more of the following things things will happen:

Massive rigging of the election on a scale much larger than we've ever seen (the primaries and caucuses were just warm-ups). This will probably happen anyway. That's the entire reason for electronic voting machines. They don't want to leave these things to chance, after all.

"Postponement" of the election due to "Russian" hacking (or Anonymous, or whomever they want to blame).

Declaration of a state of national emergency and martial law to effectively cancel the election.

Trump dies of a heart attack or in a plane crash.

I sure will be happy if I'm wrong.

* What are the odds of someone coming along who matched all those requirements? About 1 in 324,227,000. Now I'm wondering if he's a Manchurian Candidate?

People have been accusing Obama of being a closet communist for years. I frankly don't know enough to know if that's true, and neither does anyone else on our level. Could his escalating anti-Russian cold war be a setup to make us so nervous, we'll elect a president who gets along with Putin and vice-versa?

Let's see... The communists have always been good with the long plan. Russia's never gotten over losing the Eastern Bloc. Trump likes Putin and wants to disband NATO. Melania's from a formerly communist country and vacations with Putin's supposed girlfriend...

Too obvious? Too crazy? This should probably go in Rant and Rave.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

The 15 or 16 NYTimes "Picks" of all the 100's of comments are a joy to read whatever you are feeling. Fistfights at the poll stations?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/op...RecEngine&_r=0

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

The continued Wall Street purchase of Hillary continues:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/06/goldma...e-trump-pence/