Hillary and Trump

[Karl]

http://www.cbs46.com/story/33418363/witness-clinton-forward-together-tour-bus-dumps-human-waste-into-storm-drain

 

 

that's some class right there

FOS

[joeblast]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/hillary-clinton-linked-mysterious-front-associated-julian-assange-pedophile-smear

 

Podesta is the gift that keeps on giving

 

Founder of Center for American Progress

 

which is behind the attempt to frame assange as a pedo

[Karl]

"Can't we just drone this guy" because at this point "what does it matter"

[joeblast]

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/doctor-who-treated-hillary-clintons-blood-clot-found-dead/

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Julian Assange was one of my old Hacker buddies from years ago.  I hope he is still alive.  It was my opinion that after he found out about Soros he seemed against the Democrats.

 

It has been my opinion that all of the made up charges were because they never liked any of us telling people the truth.

Edited October 19, 2016 by TheWhiteRabbit

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Something happened on my end and a video did not post.  Working on it.

 

http://www.yaratube.com/video/162036/

 

I have copies of it anyway

 

also...

 

And...

 

 

...and...

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by TheWhiteRabbit

[wilfred]

Edited October 19, 2016 by wilfred

[zerostao]

no comments about last night's debate?!!

i had never been a fan of chris wallace, but he handled the whole affair masterfully.

the pundits were spinning their talking points afterwards, of course

cnn had 7 pro clinton vs 2 pro trump commentators--whoever jeffrey lord is--he handled the 7 and could have kept it up forever seemingly.  david axelrod's body language expressed defeat.

on the stage , so did clinton's. it is a shame it was not bernie on that stage, i think bernie could have held off trump.

however clinton could not. nor could she make eye contact with the camera, or look directly at anyone, except when she does her giddy smiles while waving at her donors. trump made frequent eye contact with the camera.

i doubt it makes much difference, i doubt anyone is going to jump from one candidate to the other. 

clinton in the same breath said that her heart was broken by the image of the 4 year old syrian boy with blood and mud all over him, then she said we need to expand the war in syria. i miss the logic myself, 

trump seemed angry and he brought up the 33,000 emails deleted after the fbi subpoena and the tapes revealing the clinton campaign paid their supporters 1500$ to start fist fights at trump rallys. 

like i said , i doubt it makes much difference. we have been told that nevada is up for grabs, and it probably is,

in that arena last night, it was very obvious pro-trump, despite the efforts of wallace to maintain silence.

the trump family stepped up on stage after the debate and the clintons were nowhere to be seen.

clinton did say 3 times that trump would increase the deficit by another 20 Trillion and he did not deny that.

she also said that the Clinton Foundation pays out 90% of all the $$$$ it receives directly to charity.

the blond wearing pink on the cnn panel afterwards said it was actually 10%

to which axelrod replied that is false it has already been fact checked.

and axelrod is indeed right, 10% is inaccurate, it is in fact a mere 6 % of Clinton Foundation $$$

that goes to charity.

96% of the media supports clinton, this is evidenced by contributions to her campaign. so when the media tells us that she won the debate, i suggest they have their own bias.

are the polls accurate?

will clinton win by a landslide?

i cant say either way. i can only use my own observations of what unfolded last night as my guide.

i do feel cheated in that we were denied a bernie/trump debate. my guess is, bernie would have crushed trump.

and dnc made sure that wasnt going to happen

Edited October 20, 2016 by zerostao

[zerostao]

for the sake of fairness, i will now post some john oliver as counter balance

 

 

My job is to take unflattering clips out of context and make Jill Stein and Gary Johnson look foolish so the young people that actually watch my show will shy away from voting for either one of them. Smug fake progressives will share my clip far and wide and my bosses will be very happy  #puppetmedia

[dawei]

no comments about last night's debate?!!

i had never been a fan of chris wallace, but he handled the whole affair masterfully.

 

I didn't get a chance to catch it but have read enough to see that Wallace was generally given praise and the most disturbing aspect was Trump not answering a question on accepting the election results...    

 

Really...  not answering a questions is now the greatest crime they can come up with for him.   I guess folks still have not figured him out.   That was exactly his style and no surprise to me at all.  

What this has shown me more than anything else is that there are tons of people who are way too up-tight and need to get some fresh air.    

 

Although what got me was Obama wanting to join that parade of hecklers and saying by not answering he is calling into question the validity our democracy and values... yet, Obama called out Rubio for supporting Trump.  So how is the POTUS calling out a senator for his freedom and right to support or vote for whoever he wants not creating an issue?   In my book, that is a rather serious overstep towards ensuring everyone feels free and safe to vote as they want.

 

I've never seen so much two faced-ness in politics as this year and reminds me of why I just never pay any attention to it most of the time.   

[Aetherous]

Trump completely dominated in the final debate.

[Karl]

We discussed Trumps refusal to answer that election result question on another forum. At first I thought it was Trump in defeat, but I see now that it is something incredibly sophisticated.

 

Trump is mirroring his voter base. He has created empathy with the blue collar worker that generally refuses to talk about politics and see politicians are nothing but corrupt, hot air and wind; jawboning promises that never materialise. He said what 'they' are thinking. Anyone who thinks politicians are corrupt will have heard that comment and instantly recognise it as their own. Then, they will think 'here is a guy saying what I think'. It means every insult Hillary throws at Trump lands on their backs-those 'deplorables' who are everyone but the solid Clinton voters.

 

What's more, his refusal to give an answer rankles the elite. It rankles them in the same way that the electorate rankles them. In effect it says "we do not accept your lies and corruption, we know don't want to play your game because it's stacked against us". Watch how the elite came out like angry bees and exposed themselves immediately to all but their own acolytes. Trump got them to do this on their own media streams.

 

These elite are so arrogant that they can't help but throw themselves into Trumps little trap. The alt press is exposing the election rigging. The MSM are saying Clinton can't be beaten. What is the synthesis between thesis and anti-thesis-that the tables are tilted, that the fix is in and Trump got them to shine a light on themselves. He will have secured his position with the current base and taken some new voters with him.

 

From this perspective it was a good final debate for Trump, although viewed through the eye of a political critic it looked pretty much like a draw for two rather unintelligent people.

 

Is it enough ? I think so. Clinton can no longer win even if she wins.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Karl

[dawei]

We discussed Trumps refusal to answer that election result question on another forum. At first I thought it was Trump in defeat, but I see now that it is something incredibly sophisticated.

 

Trump is mirroring his voter base. He has created empathy with the blue collar worker that generally refuses to talk about politics and see politicians are nothing but corrupt, hot air and wind; jawboning promises that never materialise. He said what 'they' are thinking. Anyone who thinks politicians are corrupt will have heard that comment and instantly recognise it as their own. Then, they will think 'here is a guy saying what I think'. It means every insult Hillary throws at Trump lands on their backs-those 'deplorables' who are everyone but the solid Clinton voters.

 

What's more, his refusal to give an answer rankles the elite. It rankles them in the same way that the electorate rankles them. In effect it says "we do not accept your lies and corruption, we know don't want to play your game because it's stacked against us". Watch how the elite came out like angry bees and exposed themselves immediately to all but their own acolytes. Trump got them to do this on their own media streams.

 

These elite are so arrogant that they can't help but throw themselves into Trumps little trap. The alt press is exposing the election rigging. The MSM are saying Clinton can't be beaten. What is the synthesis between thesis and anti-thesis-that the tables are tilted, that the fix is in and Trump got them to shine a light on themselves. He will have secured his position with the current base and taken some new voters with him.

 

I agree and its good to see someone write it for what it really is instead of what their 'political spin' is on it.   One more snub in his refusal is that he basically refused to answer the moderator as if to say, "I'm not answering stupid questions".  

 

I personally think a lot of his answers carry this message by answering with the unexpected.   His response the next day of "I'll accept.. if I win" is further show of the trap he set with the non-answer.   He also knows, headlines are headlines.  IMO, it was vintage Trump.  

[Karl]

I agree and its good to see someone write it for what it really is instead of what their 'political spin' is on it.   One more snub in his refusal is that he basically refused to answer the moderator as if to say, "I'm not answering stupid questions".  

 

I personally think a lot of his answers carry this message by answering with the unexpected.   His response the next day of "I'll accept.. if I win" is further show of the trap he set with the non-answer.   He also knows, headlines are headlines.  IMO, it was vintage Trump.

 

He shows all the hall marks of someone who is being guided by 'the art of war'. Use the enemies strength against them. When they attack, retreat, when they retreat, attack. Catch the enemy of guard, make them do the running.

 

Clinton has all the strength, the connections, the media, the money and the power. Yet a few commando raids by the likes of a single guy hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy, some amateurs on YouTube and an overweight, sanctimonious orange person is beating her black and blue.

 

It's all very clever tactics. Just keep repeating the meme 'crooked hillary' 'make America great' and before long the two phrases begin to merge. By getting ride of the crooks represented by Hillary you can make America great again.

 

This was much the same in the EU referendum, which is why I think Trump will win, or come very close to it. The same 'take back control' 'the establishment are trying to stop you' won the day. The people rose up in unprecedented numbers, more than any election, which means those who never voted before were motivated. All the polls are based on previous elections, on winning campaigns of the past, but Trump is not like the past, he isn't the polished politician, he is saying it the way the people think it. In this kind of environment the polls mean nothing. We learned this during two elections at which point the pollsters were beginning to lose the confidence of the political elite, but the EU referendum was a bombshell and the elite still cannot accept it happened.

[dawei]

He shows all the hall marks of someone who is being guided by 'the art of war'. Use the enemies strength against them. When they attack, retreat, when they retreat, attack. Catch the enemy of guard, make them do the running.

 

Clinton has all the strength, the connections, the media, the money and the power. Yet a few commando raids by the likes of a single guy hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy, some amateurs on YouTube and an overweight, sanctimonious orange person is beating her black and blue.

 

It's all very clever tactics. Just keep repeating the meme 'crooked hillary' 'make America great' and before long the two phrases begin to merge. By getting ride of the crooks represented by Hillary you can make America great again.

 

This was much the same in the EU referendum, which is why I think Trump will win, or come very close to it. The same 'take back control' 'the establishment are trying to stop you' won the day. The people rose up in unprecedented numbers, more than any election, which means those who never voted before were motivated. All the polls are based on previous elections, on winning campaigns of the past, but Trump is not like the past, he isn't the polished politician, he is saying it the way the people think it. In this kind of environment the polls mean nothing. We learned this during two elections at which point the pollsters were beginning to lose the confidence of the political elite, but the EU referendum was a bombshell and the elite still cannot accept it happened.

 

I generally agree with your observations.  Trump doesn't just name drop.. he phrase drops.   He knows the power of words.... they result in headlines.... ergo, the gift keeps giving some attention.

 

I think the sad thing is likely that it is not a true portray of him.  I'd love to see a day at work with him.  His mind is likely incredibly sharp to decide on issue where money matters.  That is what really gets lost in the climate of debates.

 

The one item I'll disagree with is whether Trump is able to generate enough uprising.  I think the US is too big and spread out and lazy on voting to appeal to his side.   What HRC offers to minorities will get them buses to get to the polls... and she may even pay for the ride       Madonna offered blow jobs to anyone who votes for HRC but that gets no notice 

[Karl]

I generally agree with your observations.  Trump doesn't just name drop.. he phrase drops.   He knows the power of words.... they result in headlines.... ergo, the gift keeps giving some attention.

 

I think the sad thing is likely that it is not a true portray of him.  I'd love to see a day at work with him.  His mind is likely incredibly sharp to decide on issue where money matters.  That is what really gets lost in the climate of debates.

 

The one item I'll disagree with is whether Trump is able to generate enough uprising.  I think the US is too big and spread out and lazy on voting to appeal to his side.   What HRC offers to minorities will get them buses to get to the polls... and she may even pay for the ride       Madonna offered blow jobs to anyone who votes for HRC but that gets no notice 

Conrad Black was on QT last night. He said that Trump isn't how he is portrayed at all, he was pretty nice about Clinton too. Something I have disliked about the attacks on Clinton is that somehow changing her mind is a bad thing. The same with Trumps comments 11 years ago. That was Trump then, but not necessarily now.

 

I think he has won even if he loses. Imagine the scrutiny on Clinton if she wins it ? The MSM has basically given away all credibility to back their horse. It will be seen as a stitch up even if it isn't. Her next four years would be dogged with the tag of 'crooked' and that is a difficult stain to shift. She can't deliver the package that Trump has made her promise and Trump and the electorate will be ready to comment on every slight set back. I predict that without the Trump bogeyman and with their reputation in tatters, even the MSM will be unable to resist joining in. She would become the president no one wants. That's an untenable position. If I were Clinton I would be lining up replacement pretty quickly.

[dawei]

Conrad Black was on QT last night. He said that Trump isn't how he is portrayed at all, he was pretty nice about Clinton too. Something I have disliked about the attacks on Clinton is that somehow changing her mind is a bad thing. The same with Trumps comments 11 years ago. That was Trump then, but not necessarily now.

 

I think he has won even if he loses. Imagine the scrutiny on Clinton if she wins it ? The MSM has basically given away all credibility to back their horse. It will be seen as a stitch up even if it isn't. Her next four years would be dogged with the tag of 'crooked' and that is a difficult stain to shift. She can't deliver the package that Trump has made her promise and Trump and the electorate will be ready to comment on every slight set back. I predict that without the Trump bogeyman and with their reputation in tatters, even the MSM will be unable to resist joining in. She would become the president no one wants. That's an untenable position. If I were Clinton I would be lining up replacement pretty quickly.

 

I agree with Conrad even from afar.  I think we both do.   What someone said 11 years ago seems to the media more important than what one did as a recent Sec. of State and the email leaks show.   I really don't like his harping on 'rigged' but there is an element that should be faced with it.

 

Definitely.. he has won even in his lose... he never enters something without walking away with some 'win'.   I am just shocked MSM and political folks missed that. 

 

Charles Barkley had an interesting commentary... a long time democrat all his life who finds himself "uncomfortable" with HRC... and then he says the accusations on Trump's 'locker room talk' is disingenuous by the attackers.   I had the exact same feeling and wondered who in the world didn't also see this...

[Karl]

Doesn't the words of those campaigners say it all ? "We have to win this fucking thing regardless of the ethics".

 

I'm reminded of Rand's description of Russia at the time she lived there. Worth looking it up on YouTube (called the red and white armies).

 

Rand said that when the Red army was in town the people preferred the white army; when the White army were in town the people preferred the red army.

 

She wrote that the White army were intent on winning, but that they had no other aim but to win. They were a fighting machine devoid of any purpose in comparison to the Red army, who, although brutal, clearly had aims and objectives.

 

I wonder if it isn't like this with the democrats. That they intend to win at all costs, but they lack any sense of purpose. Perhaps Clinton is just the eye of a big boil which has carried her by its own momentum. Isn't it true that successive Governments have come and gone but they have simply run out of ideas. They no longer stand for anything but the status quo. It is said that Rome was organised and ruled in a way that eventually resulted in the minions of the empire dictating the direction of policy. I think this is what has happened. The Government own mechanism has sabotaged it, there isn't a Government, but a huge committee that keeps pulling things around but achieves no results- this is the classic situation in which Hayek said woukd cause the rise of the strongman 'a Mussolini or a Hitler' which sounds bad, but Trump might be a benevolent tyrant compared with an ineffectual, confused Government that has lost control of its own processes, economy, education, health and foreign policies,

[joeblast]

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's, who does not want to go to war with Russia. #PeaceOffensive

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 14, 2016

"It should clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war." — @ajamubaraka Watch live: https://t.co/0B6NJLNY5j

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 13, 2016

[dawei]

Doesn't the words of those campaigners say it all ? "We have to win this fucking thing regardless of the ethics".

 

I'm reminded of Rand's description of Russia at the time she lived there. Worth looking it up on YouTube (called the red and white armies).

 

Rand said that when the Red army was in town the people preferred the white army; when the White army were in town the people preferred the red army.

 

She wrote that the White army were intent on winning, but that they had no other aim but to win. They were a fighting machine devoid of any purpose in comparison to the Red army, who, although brutal, clearly had aims and objectives.

 

I wonder if it isn't like this with the democrats. That they intend to win at all costs, but they lack any sense of purpose. Perhaps Clinton is just the eye of a big boil which has carried her by its own momentum. Isn't it true that successive Governments have come and gone but they have simply run out of ideas. They no longer stand for anything but the status quo. It is said that Rome was organised and ruled in a way that eventually resulted in the minions of the empire dictating the direction of policy. I think this is what has happened. The Government own mechanism has sabotaged it, there isn't a Government, but a huge committee that keeps pulling things around but achieves no results- this is the classic situation in which Hayek said woukd cause the rise of the strongman 'a Mussolini or a Hitler' which sounds bad, but Trump might be a benevolent tyrant compared with an ineffectual, confused Government that has lost control of its own processes, economy, education, health and foreign policies,

 

I don't really follow all the politics so much and know nothing of Rand.  I think all political sides try to win at any cost, however dishonest.   I think Trump shows a slightly different angle to it.... and I just don't want to comment more as I think it is lost on most....

[Karl]

Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's, who does not want to go to war with Russia. #PeaceOffensive

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 14, 2016

 

 

"It should clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war." — @ajamubaraka Watch live: https://t.co/0B6NJLNY5j

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 13, 2016

 

Is it really though ? It's easy to be swayed by these things. Clinton talks aggressively, but those emails reveal that she has preferred to work with Putin and has had secret meetings with him. I'm not so sure we don't have two things being conflated. There is, as Clinton said, one thing she says to the public and one thing in private. Getting elected requires pinning the tail on two donkeys. The first is that the opponent will take us to war, the second is that the opponent is colluding with the enemy. Trump has simultaneously being accused of being the guy who would push the button, whilst apparently being the same guy who lets Putin slip him the tongue. He can't be both of these people and neither can Clinton.

 

I don't think either of them want Nuclear war, or even conventional war. I think they have to be seen to be tough and capable, just enough to suggest that they would do what it takes and just enough to suggest they would entertain a dialogue. It's a kind of balance. Clinton has nothing to gain by a war with Russia, let's face it, no one has. It's just a big game of chicken. The danger is that one of the parties decides not to flinch and that there are those who would happily see the world burn.

[zerostao]

karl, clinton has come out and said her top priority is to expand the war in syria. and altho she has a documented track record of being a serial liar, she is beholden to the military industrial complex and the globalist agenda.

[joeblast]

Looks like nobody caught that Hillary dropped a bit of classified top secret information AT THE DEBATE...

 

Is there any classified information she actually hasnt mishandled?

 

Telling the world that it takes 4 minutes from a president's decision to the actual launch is some very secretive info, Hillary....but will you be prosecuted for letting yet more classified info slip live on TV in front of millions?

 

We used to joke that we'd have to catch her committing a felony live on TV in order to have her tossed in jail.  Looks like not even that is enough to have her prosecuted and held responsible for her crimes.

[Brian]

Looks like nobody caught that Hillary dropped a bit of classified top secret information AT THE DEBATE...

 

Is there any classified information she actually hasnt mishandled?

 

Telling the world that it takes 4 minutes from a president's decision to the actual launch is some very secretive info, Hillary....but will you be prosecuted for letting yet more classified info slip live on TV in front of millions?

 

We used to joke that we'd have to catch her committing a felony live on TV in order to have her tossed in jail. Looks like not even that is enough to have her prosecuted and held responsible for her crimes.

That was not a slip, either -- her campaign tweeted it, too... Edited October 21, 2016 by Brian

[Aetherous]

What evidence do we have that it's classified information?