Red
Well-Known Member
If you're interested in learning more about our existing border security:
https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176179/tomgram:_todd_miller,_the_great_mexican_wall_deception/
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
If you're interested in learning more about our existing border security:
https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176179/tomgram:_todd_miller,_the_great_mexican_wall_deception/
Red
Well-Known Member
I've been told, I think more then once, that I am essentially buying into liberal media exaggerations of Trump's gaffes and rhetoric. But I don't believe I have been demonizing the man at all. I have paid very close attention to his words, his rhetoric, for over a year now. I am capable of being my own judge of the man. And I do not find the negative spins by the media to be exaggerations at all. I simply have no reason not to agree with those characterizations.
Donald Trump has appeared on the Alex Jones show a few times. He has had kind words for the man. Well, what's a guest to do I realize, and if you don't have something nice to say about someone, and yada, yada, yada. But, if one wants to see a candidate demonized, well, for Jones and his paranoid followers, the Clinton's are murdering thugs, and have been every step of the way. Here's Alex Jones, Trump's intellectual kindred spirit, lol:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a48197/alex-jones-hillary-clinton-video/
Edit: personally, all I've concluded is that Trump is a rather classic demagogue. I've tried to place him in a historical context based on my understanding of demagogues throughout history. And I've concluded, did so very early on in this election cycle, that I do not want such an individual in the Oval Office. I'll worry about an America under Hillary when we get there. First and foremost for me is to hope Trump loses. I think he is a dangerous demagogue. I have never said he is Satan incarnate on Earth. Irresponsible to the hilt for the rhetoric he is in danger of making us all numb to, using divisive rhetoric to help enforce our divisions, but that is not demonizing, it's not the same as seeing him as Evil Incarnate.
If I stuck to policy, and left the divisive rhetoric and infantile temperament off the table entirely, the fact that Trump says he would abolish the EPA would be enough for me to oppose him....
Donald Trump has appeared on the Alex Jones show a few times. He has had kind words for the man. Well, what's a guest to do I realize, and if you don't have something nice to say about someone, and yada, yada, yada. But, if one wants to see a candidate demonized, well, for Jones and his paranoid followers, the Clinton's are murdering thugs, and have been every step of the way. Here's Alex Jones, Trump's intellectual kindred spirit, lol:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a48197/alex-jones-hillary-clinton-video/
Edit: personally, all I've concluded is that Trump is a rather classic demagogue. I've tried to place him in a historical context based on my understanding of demagogues throughout history. And I've concluded, did so very early on in this election cycle, that I do not want such an individual in the Oval Office. I'll worry about an America under Hillary when we get there. First and foremost for me is to hope Trump loses. I think he is a dangerous demagogue. I have never said he is Satan incarnate on Earth. Irresponsible to the hilt for the rhetoric he is in danger of making us all numb to, using divisive rhetoric to help enforce our divisions, but that is not demonizing, it's not the same as seeing him as Evil Incarnate.
If I stuck to policy, and left the divisive rhetoric and infantile temperament off the table entirely, the fact that Trump says he would abolish the EPA would be enough for me to oppose him....
Last edited:
Jonah
Well-Known Member
I wish I could be so certain.
In the past few weeks Clinton has slipped from a prohibitive favorite to a solid favorite. Nate Silver once had her at an 85 percent win probability, now it’s down to 70 percent. The fundamentals show the election should be a toss up. Trump is the underdog only because he’s still seen as temperamentally unfit to be president by a solid majority of voters. If he softens that image in the debates the race will tighten even more. Some polls show as much as 25 percent remain undecided. It’s very unusual, at this relatively late stage in the campaign, to still have such a large percentage of undecided voters or those that could go third party. If Gary Johnson is included in one or more of the debates, right now he pulls slightly more potential voters from Clinton than Trump, then anything could happen. We should know in about a week if Johnson is able to hit the 15 percent support threshold he needs to qualify for the first debate.
Red
Well-Known Member
And one potential game changer is whatever Assange plans as an October surprise, if he waits that long. I don't get the sense, from listening to an interview recently, that he himself thinks what he plans to release would prevent Clinton from winning, but we'll see. I also don't necessarily trust the polls, or the sense among some that it's over. It's the electoral college that matters, the swing states that matter. Whatever will be, will be....
It will be interesting to learn who this "sponsor" is that Asange is alleging she secretly funded and, in turn, funded the Clinton Foundation (and ISIS).
The severity, imo, will be how it was funded (define secret) and whether they're a known supporter of terrorism (or it's a more haphazard thing), and how exactly it's been determined money directly funneled back to the CF. If any of it is true at all.
What will it matter? Clintons has been taking money from Saudi Arabia based groups that collect from Iran Iraq Afghanistan Russia for two decades. There supporters have accepted this an do not care long as there hero wins.
I don't think our rhetoric frames the issues right. "Terrorism" is one of those terms that just doesn't mean anything. Iran can be termed the leading "State Sponsor of Terrorism" with about the same meaning as others can label the United States the leading "State Sponsor of Terrorism". The militarists among us can gloat about our "Shock and Awe" exploits with the same meaning as Islamists can gloat about hijacked planes cruising into nationally symbolic towers.
But who frames this rhetoric that drives the two sides? Lord Cecil Rhodes, the one-time colonist Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) was named for, saw pretty clearly that England was too small, had too few people to staff a great military or even a sufficient Navy, to long hold sway over India, Africa, and Asia. Even with Canada and Australia whose natives posed little threat, and even with the United States culturally and financially drawn into sync with the Empire. It has always been necessary to create divisions in the populace around the world, and necessary to employ rhetoric to that end. This hard fact is the mainspring of the modern progressive political movement, inclusive of the League of Nations and United Nations, all tools for mass management of the world in the hands of elitists. No elected representative government, yo.
The United States would be alright, if we had ever taken control of the rhetoric.
Nationalism is a dirty word because it unifies people. Populism is a dirty word because it empowers the ordinary folks. Racism is a dirty word because race is normally a unifying notion of identity, wherein people with obvious similar characteristics can easily create a community. It has always been harder to deny the classifications their place in human dynamics than create higher ideals that are more abstract, and promote them in the public consciousness with sufficient credibility to the masses.
The whole point of rhetoric is to create disturbed mass logic and prevent natural simplistic behavior. Literally speaking, rhetoric is always some form of inciting riot. Or compliance. It's making words function as tools for control and management, as well as the motive for the League of Nations and the United Nations, all institutions of elitist control of the world.
Trump is a tool, too. I found that he met with the head of the Council of Foreign Relations before he announced his campaign, and came out talking about what great people the CFR are, and how much he likes the head of the CFR. And then the CFR declares "War on Trump". That's how clever Management is, always deceiving the masses somehow, and manipulating the little people.
Hillary is a known CFR stooge herself, but so is Trump. This election is a classic management psy-op. It doesn't make any difference who "wins", Management has it all under control. Trump is being used to prevent an actual decent and independent challenge to Management.
I see most of you little JFC folks buying the rhetoric of Management. We gotta stop letting Management divide us. Don't buy the rhetoric. We are not Black or White, we are "People". We are not really impacted in our daily lives one another as much as we are impacted by "Management".
When you go to the colleges, ya gotta realize that the profs are teaching you the rhetoric of Management, and training you to your little task as a cog in the kind of society Management thrives on.
Tribalism and racism have never been so much the barrier to human liberty as elitism. If the rhetoric could be taken over and converted to a discussion of universal human rights, the issues of racism, tribalism, and privileged management would just not be real. It is to deny human liberty that Management pushes the rhetoric of race, nationalism, and other balkanizing notions.
In the rhetoric of the Least Common Denominator, you should have typed "tl,dr".
Human Comprehension is always an insufficient offering for the God of What Is.
United States intelligence darkside psy-op manipulations created ISIS and Islamic Terrorism, and even Hillary and Obama are complicit in diverting US military assets into propping up those mercenaries on the world stage.
And still sincere people like Red, Game, Jonah, Joe, and JJACs strain over the way we understand it all. And Trump is the fearsome symbol of a populace rejecting Management. He has to be made into an ogre to quell the current ripples in popular support of the two private parties ordinarily deployed to create the illusion of democracy.
Well sense you missed the point. Management created ISIS to divide us. Obama made weapon sales in Lybia that turned mercenaries into ISIS. You can not tell me we did not know this would happen. We have been creating Islamic radical terrorism for 40 years! We created 9-11 an probably knew about it just like we knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked. FDR was pushing for war for years an America said no way so he let Pearl Harbor happen cause he knew it would unify the people in to war. Just like Bush knew 9-11 would unify to finish his daddy's war an get the oil. Rinse repeat.
you are not politically correct.
let's be inclusive and have some black ghosts as well, and some Asian ghosts, and some Eskimo ghosts too.