Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Neil said:
I also think it requires a level of humility that Trump doesn't have. Maybe Putin is playing the role of Perseus and Trump is more like the shield...

That's my SOTT commentary on it ;)
Thanks for a great clear commentary Neil. Well laid out. I don't think that Trump has that humility either, but I would like to be wrong. He did seem to have joined the war party a bit, when he said that he would like to take NATO and attack ISIS in the Middle East. We all know how the MIC would love to create the conditions to accomodate him there and create the perfect (endless) war on ISIS, while attacking every country where there are business opportunites to be had.
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

[Note: I have yet to catch up on some of the last comments, but I’ve been working on this post for a while, and need to post it and get to other things just now.]

I have to say I was disappointed that there wasn't more coming from the Trump side to at the very least keep things interesting.

In giving credit where credit is due, Hillary went from looking/behaving totally vulnerable and defeated at the very beginning of the debate to then emerging as the obvious victor from about a quarter-in forward.

I see this was already touched on, but I agree that a visual analysis is necessary at this point. One is reminded of how Kennedy defeated Nixon in that famous 1960 televised debate for similar (visual) reasons, even though Kennedy (certainly in my opinion, and that of many of us here) had a great deal to offer in terms of intelligence and leadership qualities whereas Trump, quite obviously, has no such qualities. In any event, it was the strong, attractive "look" of Kennedy versus the tired seeming Nixon that is usually cited as the biggest reason for Kennedy's success in that debate.

Back to the present.. I agree that it’s fairly incredible, and yet, in retrospect, predictable that Hillary -- who seemed at death's door leading up to the debate -- seemed more and more healthy, vibrant, centered, and yes, haughty and even giddy once she turned the tables on Trump and had the upper hand. I'd have to do more of a visual analysis -- to see whether the camera angle changed -- but she seemed to be literally LARGER as the debate progressed. This may have been from the beginning, or it could be the camera angle was changed so that Hillary's camera angle was closer than that of Trump's. And so subliminally speaking she seemed to be dwarfing him.

Hillary was obviously well coached, and I can just hear her advisors telling her to just sit tight and Trump will lose the debate for her, which is exactly what happened. As soon as she had him on the defensive re: his taxes, etc., he became this narcissistic, petty, whining, inarticulate, frustrated, deflated clown cluelessly performing his own defeat. His brow was furrowed and red, and his whole image seemed rather wan somehow when compared with Hillary's bright red outfit and expertly applied makeup and golden hair. Yes, she was haughtily smiling, but with good reason. She knew the formula was working and that Trump was just flailing around -- period. I'm not getting into specific content, just the content of these images as they arose.

HOWEVER.. I do agree that the entire debate was heavily slanted towards Hillary.. (thus the closer camera angle).. and when Trump really had her on ONE VERY CRUCIAL ISSUE, the moderator dropped the whole thing.

Does anyone here remember what that was?

Why, it was Trump’s bringing up Janet Yellen, the head of the Federal Reserve, and her holding to the near zero interest rate, which is our nation's free give away to all the Wall Street Bankster frauds who are taking this risk free give away for their free wheeling speculation in the commodities markets. And of course all these financial bubbles are timed for imminent collapse with insiders making the killing while the rest of us pay for it in every conceivable way including huge government funded bailouts for the very criminals who perpetrate this fraud.

Trump, in his way, was pointing to the idea of imminent financial collapse, but he lacked the language for it -- or the opportunity to bring out this issue given how slanted the moderator was. Important to note, the entire U.S. economy is a Ponzi scheme based on debt. You cannot print your way out of a recession. And you cannot keep the interest rate at near zero forever. The feds know this. They are just holding off imminent collapse by doing so. And it seems painfully obvious that the only amenable solutions to this will not come from either party. I mean, can you imagine Trump or Hillary proposing some equitable sort of debt jubilee? Ain’t gonna happen. All the financial sector is doing is frantically seeking new last minute measures to stave off the collapse. IMF issued bonds I’ve heard is the latest frontier that some say will prolong the death throes.

To further the notion that no healthy remedies are likely to come from Trump, the following is KEY, and points to a division of power at the top that I learned about during the Bush 2 years:

angelburst29 said:
The surprises are starting before the debate.

Despite being snubbed by former US presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, Republican candidate Donald Trump has won support for his presidential run from a group of more than 50 members of both Bush administrations.

'Alumni' of US Bush Administrations Back Trump Hours Before Presidential Debate
https://sputniknews.com/us/20160927/1045727372/alumni-bush-administration-back-trump-debate.html

The endorsement was issued in a form of a letter just hours before Monday night’s televised debate between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

We, the undersigned, citing the need for bold leadership, a strong national defense, sound economic policy and a Supreme Court committed to preserving the freedoms framed in the Constitution, launch this coalition of former Cabinet officials, presidential appointees and campaign alumni of the George H.W. and/or George W. Bush administrations," a letter released on Monday read.

The coalition includes former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former White House political director Matt Schlapp, former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and former Treasury Secretary John Snow.

The letter was signed, "Bush Alumni Coalition Supporting Donald J. Trump and Governor Mike Pence for President and Vice President."

The division of power I was mentioning is along these lines: it’s George H. W. Bush heading the old guard at the CIA, this includes the Bush’s long standing ties with the Clintons.

This old guard, which is more multilateral in its approach to foreign affairs, is up against the more aggressive Neo-Cons: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, etc.

I urge everyone to get hold of Webster Griffin Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terror, paying special attention to chapter IX that delineates the coup that happened on 9/11 in which George W. Bush is literally taken hostage by the Neo Cons and forced to do their bidding. In fact, according to Tarpley’s book there was an assassination attempt on George W. Bush the day before 9/11 which (as I recall) was intended as a threat. That is to say, if he didn’t comply with their agenda, he’d be killed and Cheney would take over. Ironically, Karl Rove (who “coached” George W. Bush for the presidency at the father’s behest) never trusted Dick Cheney who, if you recall, was Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush from 1989 – 1993. So, Cheney is a pivotal character in this. And "W" as president reluctantly acted on behalf of the Neo Cons since he literally had a gun to his head. (No wonder he's kept out of the public eye.)

Anyway, this power divide is very useful to keep track of, and now we know who is backing Trump: the Neo Cons.

.. with that in mind, they have some serious coaching to do if they’re gonna sic Trump on Hillary in the next two debates. The Neo Cons now can see what Trump is up against, and so maybe Trump will come back and hit ‘er with both barrels blazing. We’ll see. He'd have to get out of his own way though, which ain't gonna' be easy.

Of course, as others have said already, we all lose either way.
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Neil said:
This is the first debate I've watched since the first Obama debate back in 2008 and I tuned in just to be entertained more than informed.[...]


Very good summary Neil. Thank you! No doubt: Trump is the better "choice" for the sane world. Who would have thought, let's say 16 years ago, that it will come to a point in time in the near future, that one could actually reasonably suggest such a thing...

It is like living and experiencing the twilight zone. The west has become so totally insane and drags the whole world down with it. I'm just sitting here and can only feel this expression:

:jawdrop: paired with this one :barf:
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I watched it, and there's some great analysis here. I agree that Trump held back a lot. Hillary (and the moderator) took more time to dissect and criticize Trump's weaknesses, but Trump did this sparingly and in his typical sound-bite fashion rather than truly discuss it or press the issue. Hillary was more eloquent, like a textbook, but it was fluff and paramoralisms. I think Trump's most important point was that she didn't do any of what she promises over her entire political career (and instead contributed to the global and national chaos), why should anyone expect her to suddenly change course? Unlike Trump she has a record, a long record in politics.

And that brings me back to my first point and what others have already mentioned - there is SO much more dirt from Hillary's record that he should've used, including going into details on the few things he did attack her on. Trump loses his thought process half-way through sentences like a dog that sees a squirrel. He literally leaves mid-sentence into a whole new direction over and over. He ends up basically dropping headlines but never the article. And when he tries, it actually sounds like someone jumbled up the sentences (all of which are incomplete) in random order as a result of his ADHD approach. He is absolutely not cut out for debating - which requires following through on a thought process, being able to stick to a subject for more than 5 seconds.

Once she got him on the defensive (and the moderator helped), it was all over - he rambled, repeated the same points over and over, and his ego just couldn't handle the pressure. He has no idea what it's like to not be the center of attention and the most admired/loved/respected person in a room. Hillary knew she's the media and moderator favorite, and once she got the audience giggling at her zings, you could see her confidence shoot up and his drop. You could almost see her feeding off of him and the audience. Also as a psychopath, her confidence and cockiness is harder to damage because it's build-in - she cannot feel embarrassed or nervous. Her political experience makes her a better "debater" - she's simply more sly, and more experienced at using psychological tricks to out-argue even if there is no essence or real evidence in her arguments, they just need to be plausible and eloquent enough to work. Trump is a narcissist with a very vulnerable ego that routinely shuts his brain down when it feels threatened. He can negotiate deals and understand finances, but he can't do it if he doesn't have a position of power or advantage from the start. That's why the name Trump is on everything.

He did drop a few truth-bombs that unfortunately made no impact. He did say we're in a bubble right now - a dangerous financial bubble and we better tread carefully. This was ignored but it was probably one of the most important and true things anyone said during the whole debate, outside of personal attacks.

I think he could win if he actually went after her savagely and without holding back. There is a reason so many people hate her, and THAT's what needs to be emphasized. It's not her stance on abortion or jobs. Talk about rigging the primary against Bernie. Talk about Clinton Foundation. Talk about donations from Saudi Arabia and other sources. Talk about her transcripts from Wall Street speeches. Talk about Bengazi, Syria, Libya. And go back and discuss the email situation in more details cuz it's juicy as hell.

And hell, wanna be a little crazy? Talk about her health. Talk about her forced laughter at anything she doesn't wanna answer. Hell, bring up the Clinton body count if you really wanna stir some things up. At this point why the hell not? Arm yourself with the best available evidence (and there is so much of it!) and be ready to defend and discuss each statement - and PRESS IT. To hell with the moderator. What's he gonna do? The ratings from all of this would be so ridiculous that someone will mute the moderator's mic just so Trump could continue. And if they mute Trump then the controversy from that alone would create chaos and conversations.

Unfortunately he was tame. I think he's gonna let her win this one. I think he knows it, both of their last statements were hinting at it. He didn't have to say he would support her if she wins, that was more than the question was asking. It just felt wrong, especially coming from him.

I suspect this is why Bernie's campaign was so weak - they knew all along he wasn't gonna make it. He never attacked Hillary because he knew he'd have to about-face later and support her, and it would look much weirder if he spent months pointing out how full of shit and awful she is. Bernie wasn't a wimp, he simply knew what was gonna happen. And I'm starting to think Trump is pulling back now (and didn't actually spend his campaign attacking her much at all) because he also knows that if he goes all out it would be super awkward if he then has to say something nice later.

You can smell planned defeat in advance, I think. And it's sad!
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I've listened to parts of the debate and can't stomach much more. They are both completely insane. It's a bit depressing to see that these two liar 'leaders' are what the US has to offer. It's like watching another reality. The US and Co. have done a lot of damage and caused tremendous suffering within the US and much more so world-wide. With Killary's war mongering, political history, financial hoodwinking, all the dead bodies and other psychopathic lies and maneuvers, it's obvious that more and more that will occur and will be dragged out longer than it might be under Trump who is at least, a wild card, narcissistic and fascist as he may be.

Lilou said:
Either way, there is no winning choice - warmonger or narcacisstic fascist - the elites have themselves covered! And with Trumps running mate, Mike Pence saying Dick Cheney is his role model, we're screwed.

Exactly. :shock:

Neil said:
That's my SOTT commentary on it ;)

Thanks for the summary, Neil. It's well put together and quite humorous in places.

Bottom Line: This is a little like a bastardized American version of Perseus going after Medusa. You have a puffed up arrogant hero of average intelligence going up against a conniving serpent who is moderately senile. Who is going to win? And what is Perseus going to do if/when he gets Medusa's head and comes back to rule the kingdom? Sounds like this version is going to be more tragic than the original.
:lol:
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Pashalis said:
Neil said:
This is the first debate I've watched since the first Obama debate back in 2008 and I tuned in just to be entertained more than informed.[...]


Very good summary Neil. Thank you! No doubt: Trump is the better "choice" for the sane world. Who would have thought, let's say 16 years ago, that it will come to a point in time in the near future, that one could actually reasonably suggest such a thing...

It is like living and experiencing the twilight zone. The west has become so totally insane and drags the whole world down with it. I'm just sitting here and can only feel this expression:

:jawdrop: paired with this one :barf:

Great summary Neil and SAO, I now have a red spot on my forehead from the many face palms during the debate. :ohboy:
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Killary's doc did a bang-up job getting her med cocktail just right. She hasn't looked that good in ages, and not one cough. The makeup artist should get an award too.

I noticed the blinking pattern. There's been speculation on the net that she did have an ear piece (against the rules),
LI-13-Hillary-Ear-Piece-620x405.png

unnamed-1.png


or even more wildly, contact lenses with a "heads-up" teleprompter built in. Apparently DAARPA's been working on that.

_http://www.extremetech.com/computing/126043-us-military-developing-multi-focus-augmented-reality-contact-lenses

Either way it could account for the unnaturally smooth delivery of all her points. The blinking would possibly be explained as concentration. No surprise if she did cheat.

It was pretty weird that with the wealth of ammunition available to Trump to get Kil on, he didn't go after her full bore. Somewhere in the middle of the session, he made this strange remark that he could say some really 'hurtful things, personal things' about her but he chose not to.

Along with the mentioned reasons for this, I did read a FB post speculating that Trump, who's been accused of being a loose cannon, wanted to show he could control himself, and not react to provocations. That he had such a presidential quality. Killary did come off much more polished, but then she's been in the game for decades. Trump was more one note about what a great business man he was, and that would translate well to the presidency. He did keep hammering on the fact that she's had thirty years to get all her promises done but, 'it's all a mess!'

Making a batch of nausea-reducing ginger tea for the next round! :nuts:
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Speaking of Trump being subdued in the debate, did anyone catch early on, roughly around the time he started going on the defensive and Hillary started baiting him rather successfully, that he said he was asked not to interrupt her so much anymore? I got the distinct impression that he was being signaled while the debate was happening. His main tactic was to stifle Hillary by interrupting her scripted responses and then all of a sudden he was letting her ramble on.
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Pashalis said:
Keit said:
[...]So, not only it is scary, it also shows that sharing something "with friends" on social media in order to inform them of something is also very pointless. They either already agree with you, and you are preaching to the choir, or they are not going to agree with you, period. Sharing funny videos of cats is another story, of course. :rolleyes:

On the other hand there is always the chance that you can reach somebody in meaningful way and plant a seed to question their world view. So I wouldn't say it is pointless, since even reaching only one person in a meaningful way can make a difference. Of course that doesn't mean one should not respect the rules of free will and external consideration, but sometimes just expressing your personal standpoint in a careful way, is enough for some few people to question their world view. That in itself is a worthy thing to do, OSIT.

I agree, and I found that I usually get better responses on fb if I'm posting more 'open' comments. As Gudjieff said, we need to tailor our messages to the audience and what/how they can understand (paraphrasing). So what I try to do is envision who my 'target audience' for this or that post might be. It might be very different for each of us depending on friends, family, colleagues etc. that we are friends with on FB.

A rant from time to time is fine to express our feelings I think, but most people don't like zealots (or what they perceive to be zealots), so I think sometimes it's better for example to post the speech by Russia's UN ambassador and write "Very interesting what Russia's ambassador to the UN has to say about the situation in Syria" instead of, let's say (exaggerating), "Putin is my hero - the US are all LIARS!!". That way, some people might consider a different perspective and a seed is planted, instead of making it easy for them to dismiss everything we say as "Russian propaganda" or "conspiracies".

Another thing I found helpful is to post some private things/daily life things/accomplishments from time to time so that people see I'm a normal guy and not some Russian agent or tinfoil hat nutter. Interestingly, usually many people like those posts, and I suspect that some of those are following my political posts closely but are too afraid to like/comment. So they express their gratitude with a 'like' on something mundane - or so I hope!

Of course, some will never get it, but I think it's worthwhile to experiment with different approaches. As Pashalis said, every little thing counts. As discouraging as it is to attract comments by idiots (which then can be safely put on a list so that they don't see our political posts anymore, by the way), my experience shows that there ARE people out there that really benefit from our social media efforts, even if they are mostly silent. Heck, if it's just one soul that can be helped a little, it's worth it - we know how seemingly small things can have huge repercussions.

Sorry for going OT...
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Laura said:
loreta said:
Maybe people also are fascinated by a woman who 2 weeks ago was almost dying in front of them and now look, she is so perfect, so alert, so magnificent in her words and attitude! A woman who was so sick and now seems so in good health, a SUPER WOMAN.

And wearing a POWER RED suit!!

And Trump with his soothing blue tie.

Interestingly, on electoral maps, Republican states are shown in red, whereas Democratic states are shown in blue (although it wasn't always this way). Symbolically speaking, perhaps this is a way of showing that candidates from both political parties are cut from the same cloth! ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

herondancer said:
I noticed the blinking pattern. There's been speculation on the net that she did have an ear piece (against the rules),
or even more wildly, contact lenses with a "heads-up" teleprompter built in. Apparently DAARPA's been working on that.

_http://www.extremetech.com/computing/126043-us-military-developing-multi-focus-augmented-reality-contact-lenses

Either way it could account for the unnaturally smooth delivery of all her points. The blinking would possibly be explained as concentration. No surprise if she did cheat.
Turgon said:
Speaking of Trump being subdued in the debate, did anyone catch early on, roughly around the time he started going on the defensive and Hillary started baiting him rather successfully, that he said he was asked not to interrupt her so much anymore? I got the distinct impression that he was being signaled while the debate was happening. His main tactic was to stifle Hillary by interrupting her scripted responses and then all of a sudden he was letting her ramble on.
There was an article on SotT that said that both candidates were being allowed to use an earphone, but not the facilitator.
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Prodigal Son said:
[...]

There was an article on SotT that said that both candidates were being allowed to use an earphone, but not the facilitator.

Couldn't find that one. Do you have a link? By the way, at least in the beginning the moderator clearly read from a screen.


Mod's note: fixed quote box
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Keit said:
But it is a good example that perhaps we are really beyond a point of trying to explain to people anything. To open their eyes or whatever. Basically, seems like the cards have fallen a long time ago, and we just need to concentrate on our own choices. fwiw.

I have had the same experience the last few years. At best one is looked upon as an eccentric oddball, and if I try to press some pont if view it usually only generates unrest and provoked feelings. So I agree in focusing on one's own choices, it seems to me that we are past having any hope of connecting to most people.
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

Thanks Neil and SAO for your posts. I think they capture the situation well.

Hillary was so fake with that creepy smile it was nauseating. When she did that laugh and shake thing in reaction to something Trump said… sick bag! Reminds you of the joy and laughter she had when interviewed about Gaddafi’s killing. I think she really enjoys and is energized by the destruction of others – psychopath. She was definitely playing to her base with her scripted responses and her followers just gobbled it up from what I see in post by some friends on FB. The lies come smooth and easy for her and she of course had to bring the Russian hacking card out. She has the left under her thumb with her fake persona, practiced delivery and people supporting her as the lesser evil, because they fear Trump.

Trump couldn’t really string a complete thought together and it was difficult to watch, especially when under pressure. He was put on the defensive by Clinton and the moderator, Lester Holt, and I think he was caught out and reacted poorly. His interruptions of Clinton and his faces he made were comical – as Laura has indicated before, he is a clown. I also think the debate showed that he is a narcissist reaction machine. The part I found ominous about Trump was his repeating of “law and order” when it came to stop and frisk, police, protests, etc. I think you can see the true authoritarian part of him on display there. If elected, I think he could be very easily pushed to react with the full power of the police state given even loose justification to act.

Trump and Killary are both suited to be molded into TPTB’s plans. Clinton in full support. Trump by easily being manipulated by the ‘Secret Team’ to have him react the way they want.

As for reaching people on FB, I recently met with old classmates from a psychology master’s program. I was a little worried how I would be perceived, since I became friends on FB with them only after graduation and so they had a better idea of my views. 3 or 4 of them said thanks for the comments and posts and to keep posting, since it gave them a different perspective on things. For the most part none of them have liked or shared articles or commented on the things I’ve posted. So you never know who you are reaching even when there doesn’t seem to be any response.
 
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

This is video contends that Clinton was signalling to Holt, the moderator, to go back to her using a signal of fake face scratches so she can make zingers on Trump.


https://youtu.be/3XSuG5aCFGs

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/presidential-debate-reviewing-tape-how-hillary-cheated/?source=tmn
 
Back
Top Bottom